Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Challenging Provisions Under Section 498A IPC
Last Updated on April 20, 2025 by NewsDesk SLC
The Supreme Court of India recently dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) that aimed to challenge the provisions of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), now referred to as Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS). This legislation primarily addresses issues related to dowry and domestic violence, asserting the need for balanced protection for all parties involved in matrimonial cases.
Background of the Case
The bench, consisting of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh, examined the petition filed by the NGO Janshruti (People’s Voice) through Advocate Sadhana Sandhu. The petition raised essential concerns regarding the potential misuse of Section 498A, advocating for a mandatory preliminary investigation before the filing of certain domestic violence complaints, as well as the introduction of legal protection against false allegations.
Court’s Observations
During the hearing, Justice Kant remarked that claims of misuse were vague and required a case-by-case analysis rather than sweeping generalizations. The bench emphasized that while there could indeed be instances of misuse, the protective nature of the law for women’s rights and empowerment should not be undermined. Justice Kant poignantly noted, “Where are the instances of misuse?” emphasizing a need for concrete evidence rather than unfounded allegations.
The court also rejected the argument that domestic violence laws should be modeled after those of other countries. Justice Kant asserted that India should uphold its legislative sovereignty, stating, “Why should we follow other countries? They should follow our country!”
Petitioner’s Requests
Among the specific requests made by the petitioner were:
- Framing gender-neutral guidelines for maintenance and other related provisions.
- Mandatory preliminary investigations before filing domestic violence cases.
- Establishing mechanisms for compensating individuals falsely accused of matrimonial offenses.
- Streamlining the maintenance process to enforce strict timelines.
However, the bench dismissed these requests, asserting that policy matters lie within the Parliament’s purview and are not for the judiciary to legislate.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the PIL reinforces the importance of protecting women’s rights while simultaneously recognizing the potential for misuse of such laws. The court urged careful consideration of individual cases and emphasized that any legislative changes should not jeopardize the legal protections afforded to victims of domestic violence. The case serves as a significant reminder of the complexities involved in balancing rights and protections in sensitive matrimonial issues.
