For Every Instance Of S.498A IPC Misuse, There Are Hundreds Of Genuine Domestic Cruelty Cases: Supreme Court
The Court said that dowry still persisted as a social evil and many cases of abuse over dowry demands went unreported.;
While rejecting a challenge to the constitutionality of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (now Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), the Supreme Court said that mere potential of misuse of a provision cannot be a ground to strike it down.The Court, acknowledging that there are instances of misuse of the provision, however, added that for every instance of misuse, there...
While rejecting a challenge to the constitutionality of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (now Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), the Supreme Court said that mere potential of misuse of a provision cannot be a ground to strike it down.
The Court, acknowledging that there are instances of misuse of the provision, however, added that for every instance of misuse, there are hundreds of genuine cases where the provision acted as a safeguard against domestic violence.
"We are cognizant of the growing discourse highlighting instances where the provision may have been misused. However, it must be borne in mind that for every such instance, there are likely hundreds of genuine cases where Section 498A has served as a crucial safeguard for victims of domestic cruelty. We are also aware that certain unconscionable individuals, emboldened by the rising fervor to dismantle such protective provisions, have gone so far as to publicly share videos depicting the exchange of dowry—an act not only unlawful but also indicative of the entrenched nature of the very evil this provision seeks to combat," the Court said.
Dowry still exists
The Court said that as a Constitutional Court, it has to be cognizant of the social realities. The practice of dowry still existed and many cases of violations go unreported.
"The harsh truth is that dowry continues to persist as a deeply entrenched social evil, prevalent across vast sections of the country. A significant majority of such cases go unreported, with countless women compelled to endure injustice in silence. This underscores the continuing need for legal provisions such as Section 498A, which serve as vital instruments of protection and redressal for those most vulnerable."
The Court dismissed a public interest litigation seeking inter-alia balanced protection for all parties in matrimonial cases, mandatory preliminary investigation before filing of S.498A IPC/domestic violence cases and legal protection against false complaints.
Dismissing the PIL filed by an organisation named Janshruthi (People's Voice), the bench observed that it saw no reason to interfere with the legislative policy/mandate behind Section 498A IPC.
The plea that such provision is violative of Art.14 is wholly misconceived and misdirected. Art.15 of the Constitution explicitly empowers to enact a special law for protection of women, children.
The Court observed :
"It is also trite that the impugned provisions were enacted in furtherance of the principle of positive discrimination envisaged under Article 15 of the Constitution of India, which expressly empowers the State to make special laws for the protection and advancement of women, children and other disadvantaged groups.
In view of the legislative intent and the rationale supporting its enactment, we find no justification to interfere with the legislative process in the present circumstances, nor are we inclined to transgress the well- established boundaries of the doctrine of separation of powers. In view of the foregoing, the contention that the said provision violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India is wholly misconceived and without merit."
On the petitioner's plea that the provision was being misused by women, the Court said that mere possibility or occasional misuse of a legal provision does not render it constitutionally infirm.
"Even in the context of Section 498A, this Court has reiterated that while misuse must be guarded against, the provision cannot be trivialized or undermined merely because it has, in some instances, been invoked unscrupulously. However, this Court has also cautioned that it is not to be treated as a tool to prank assistance or as a means to 'cry wolf'."
The Court said that allegations of misuse must be addressed on a case-to-case basis. Merely based on general allegations raised in an Article 32 petition, the Court cannot adjudicate the constitutionality of the provision.
"In assessing the constitutionality of such penal provisions, it becomes imperative to strike a delicate balance. While it is acknowledged that certain individuals may face hardship due to the misuse of the provision, it is equally important to look beyond these instances and recognize that the provision serves a constitutionally sound objective. It is aimed at protecting a vulnerable section of society that often requires legal support and institutional safeguards to shield them from systemic abuse and exploitation," the Court said.
Case Title: JANSHRUTI (PEOPLE'S VOICE) Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., Diary No. 2152-2025
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 464
Click here to read the judgment