Supreme Court Rejects Plea That S.498A IPC/S.84 BNS Violates Article 14, Says Allegations Of Misuse Vague

The Supreme Court today 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.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh heard the matter.

Dismissing the PIL, the bench observed that it saw no reason to interfere with the legislative policy/mandate behind Section 498A IPC, now read as Section 84 of the BNS. 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 the 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 some provisions (like Section 498A IPC) are 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.

"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."

Justice Kant orally observed that such sweeping statement can't be made. There may be possibility of misuse, but a provision meant for protection of women and to further women empowerment must not be attacked like this, the judge said.

"We understand that it's a spicy news item that S.498A IPC is being misused...where are the instances of misuse?" Justice Kant remarked. When the petitioner's counsel claimed that instances have been cited in the petition, she was told that the petitioner should let the aggrieved parties approach the Court.

When the counsel pointed out that in India, domestic violence cases can be filed only by women, while in other countries, anybody can file such cases, Justice Kant retorted, "and therefore, we should legislate? We maintain our sovereignty. Why should we follow other countries? They should follow our country!".

Insofar as the petitioner sought framing of guidelines (with regard to maintenance, etc.), the judge said that every case needs to be decided on its peculiar facts and circumstances. Expressing displeasure with the reliefs sought, Justice Kant further probed the counsel if she could make a sweeping statement that there is not a single instance of women's victimization on account of dowry.

"Where the husband or his family has been victimized, law must take course accordingly. If woman has been harassed, this law must come to her rescue also. So what is wrong with the provision?", the judge expressed.

Although the counsel sought to place before the Court data collected from National Crime Records Bureau, Justice Kant said the bench was not inclined to go by the data and the same would be put to better use in a particular case where some provision happens to be misused.

Subsequently, the petitioner's counsel sought leave to withdraw the petition with permission to file a better petition with more comprehensive data. However, the bench declined. Justice Kant told the counsel to not misuse the platform only because some instances are there. "If you have the patience to sit in Court today, you will find there is a case where the woman has been beheaded by the husband. Do you want us to apply "misuse" [submission] there? What are you talking? You know the Indian society. You want us to strike down the law? Very unfortunate!".

With regard to the petitioner's prayer for setting of time-limits for adjudication of maintenance cases, etc., the bench noted that additional infrastructure would be required for expeditious disposal of the cases, generating a financial burden the capacity to bear which would vary from state-to-state. 

Ultimately, it was concluded that the petitioner was expecting the Court to legislative on policy matters, which are prerogative of the Parliament. Accordingly, the PIL was dismissed.

The PIL, filed by NGO Janshruti (People's Voice), through Advocate-on-Record Sadhana Sandhu, sought the following reliefs:

(1) framing of guidelines for grant of maintenance and declaration of Sections 125-128 CrPC, Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, and related provisions in the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 as gender-neutral;

(2) amendment of Section 498A IPC to ensure balanced protection for all individuals involved in matrimonial disputes;

(3) Mandatory preliminary investigations and evidence verification before filing of cases under Sections 498A IPC, 125 CrPC, and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005;

(4) Establishment of mechanisms to compensate individuals falsely accused of matrimonial offenses;

(5) Streamlining of maintenance procedures and for courts to adhere to strict timelines (90 days) for resolving maintenance and alimony claims;

(6) Limit on maintenance durations for educated spouses to two years, enabling self-sufficiency;

(7) Promotion of Mediation and Conciliation and to make mediation mandatory as the first step in resolving certified matrimonial mediators to disputes, involving facilitate amicable resolutions;

(8) Establishment of Specialized Matrimonial Mediation Courts to create multidisciplinary matrimonial dedicated expertise forums to efficiently and empathetically handle cases;

(9) Enhancement of legal protections and accountability, including introduction of penalties for filing false complaints under Section 182 IPC;

(10) Enforcement of standardized financial disclosure formats in all maintenance and alimony cases;

(11) Facilitation of online filing, virtual hearings, and digital case management systems to reduce delays and enhance accessibility;

(12) Promotion of legal literacy and training, and campaigns for public awareness, responsible use of matrimonial laws and the consequences of misuse;

(13) Provision of specialized training for law enforcement and judiciary on gender sensitivity and fair enforcement practices;

(14) Consolidation of related cases so that all matrimonial disputes between the same parties are adjudicated in a single consolidated proceeding;

(15) Relief for false allegations and towards compensation to the victims of false complaints to safeguard their dignity and reputation.

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