Col. Rajnish Bhandari, VSM v. Union of India & Ors.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: R. F. Nariman
Surya Kant
Judgment Date: 2019-08-02
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed. The RPC Section 497 is declared unconstitutional as violative of Part III of the Constitution. Nothing survives against the appellant on charges under Section 497 RPC. The Armed Forces Tribunal’s judgment is set aside; however, confirmation proceedings under Section 63 of the Army Act, 1950 may proceed to a logical conclusion.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed, with statutory provisions struck down and directions as stated.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Col. Rajnish Bhandari, VSM

Respondents

Union of India
Ors.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv.
• Ms. Neela Gokhale
• Ms. Sahrdha G Agarwal
• Elam Pradi
• R. P. Chhibber
• Ms. Kamakshi S. Mehlwal

Counsels for Respondents

• Sr. Adv. R. Balasubramanian
• Bharat Singh
• Arvind Kumar Sharma

Case Synopsis & Summary

The Supreme Court, in a Division Bench comprising Justices R. F. Nariman and Surya Kant, examines the pari materia provisions of penal law applicable to Jammu & Kashmir, focusing on Section 497 of the Ranbir Penal Code, 1932, and its alignment with Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The appellant challenges the Ranbir provision as violative of Part III of the Constitution, arguing that prescribing abettor liability for a wife in adultery-related conduct creates unconstitutional gender-based discrimination and lacks a constitutionally sustainable basis. The Court recalls its Joseph Shine v. Union of India decision, applying the pari materia principle to hold the RPC provision unconstitutional. It holds that the sentence referring to the wife as an abettor cannot stand and that the entire Section 497 RPC is violative of Part III. As a consequence, nothing survives against the appellant on charges under Section 497 RPC. With respect to Section 63 of the Army Act, 1950, the appellant’s acquittal (subject to confirmation) is acknowledged, and the Armed Forces Tribunal’s judgment is set aside; however, confirmation proceedings may proceed to their logical conclusion. The appeal is allowed, clarifying that the constitutional invalidity overrides prior adjudications and mandates reconsideration of criminal liability under the struck-down provision.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 497 of the Ranbir Penal Code, 1932Section 63 of the Army Act, 1950Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860Constitution of India, Part III

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

pari materia
Joseph Shine principle (constitutional invalidity of Section 497 IPC under Part III)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants contend that Section 497 RPC is pari materia to Section 497 IPC and violates Part III of the Constitution; it imposes abettor liability in gendered circumstances and lacks a rational basis. They seek quashing of charges under Section 497 RPC. The Army Act proceedings under Section 63 are discussed in light of an acquittal, with a view toward finality in connection with confirmation.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents defend the validity of the pari materia provision and its alignment with IPC 497; they seek to sustain the conviction framework and argue for the propriety of continuing the Army Act confirmation proceedings as per jurisdictional statute.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Joseph Shine v. Union of India	(2019) 3 SCC 39 : [2018] 11 SCR 765	Positive	The Court follows the Joseph Shine decision, applying the pari materia doctrine to strike down the RPC provision as violative of Part III.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

**[2019] 11 S.C.R. 1** 57 157 COL. RAJNISH BHANDARI, VSM A v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 3204 of 2019) AUGUST 02, 2019 B ## **[R. F. NARIMAN AND SURYA KANT, JJ.]** _Ranbir Penal Code, 1932:_ _s. 497 – Constitutional validity of – Held: The provision u/s. 497 is_ pari materia _provision to s. 497 IPC, which has been declared_ C _as unconstitutional in *_ Joseph Shine _case – Therefore, the provision (s. 497 of RPC) is held violative of part III of the Constitution – Nothing survives against the accused on the charges relatable to s. 497 – Appeal allowed – Penal Code, 1860 – s. 497 – Constitution of India – Part III._ D D _Army Act, 1950:_ _s. 63 – Prosecution under – Accused already acquitted, subject to confirmation – Judgment of Armed Forces Tribunal is set aside – Confirmation proceedings may go on and reach its logical conclusion – Appeal allowed._ E _*Joseph Shine v. Union of India_ **(2019) 3 SCC 39 : [2018] 11 SCR 765** _**–**_ **followed.** CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3204 of 2019 F From the Judgment and Order dated 08.01.2019 of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Srinagar at Jammu in Original Application No. 450 of 2017 Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv., Ms. Neela Gokhale, Ms. Sahrdha G Agarwal, Elam Pradi, R. P. Chhibber, Ms. Kamakshi S. Mehlwal, Advs. for the Appellant. R. Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv., Bharat Singh, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advs. for the Respondents. H 157 158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 11 S.C.R. A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ## **R. F. NARIMAN, J.** 1. Having heard learned counsel for both the parties and having perused Section 497 of the Ranbir Penal Code, 1932, applicable to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, we are of the view that, given our judgment B in _Joseph Shine_ v. _Union of India_ (2019) 3 SCC 39, the _pari materia_ provision contained in Section 497 of the Ranbir Penal Code be also declared as violative of Part III of the Constitution of India. The sentence “In such case the wife shall be punishable as an abettor”, which does not occur in Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, cannot stand by C itself in view of the fact that the expression used is ‘In such case’. The entire Section is, therefore, declared to be unconstitutional. The fact that this statement of law in the Ranbir Penal Code is the exact opposite of the statement of law, so far as the wife is concerned, of that contained in the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is of no consequence. D 2. We are, therefore, of the view that nothing survives against the appellant on charges relatable to Section 497 Penal Code. So far as Section 63 of the Army Act, 1950, is concerned, the appellant has already been acquitted, subject to confirmation. The Armed Forces Tribunal judgment dated 08.01.2019 is, therefore, set aside. The appeal stands E allowed. 3. However, it is made clear that the confirmation proceedings, so far as the offence under Section 63 of the Army Act, 1950, is concerned, may go on and reach its logical conclusion. F Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeal allowed. G H