Supreme Court Rejects Plea That S.498A IPC/S.85 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 85 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."Dowry still existsThe 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." 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...

Supreme Court Rejects Plea That S.498A IPC/S.85 BNS Violates Article 14, Says Allegations Of Misuse Vague

Debby Jain

Tags