Justice Surya Kant, Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, Supreme Court
Mere Possibility Or Occasional Misuse Doesn’t Render It Constitutionally Infirm: Supreme Court Upholds Constitutional Validity Of Section 498A IPC
|The Supreme Court stated that while it’s true that instances of misuse have emerged over time, such concerns by themselves are rarely sufficient to warrant striking down a statutory provision or diluting its effect.
While remarking that the mere possibility or occasional misuse of a legal provision does not render it constitutionally infirm, the Supreme Court dismissed a Writ Petition challenging the constitutionality of Section 498A of the IPC (now Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023).
The Court stated that the argument regarding the alleged misuse of the provisions was “vague and unsubstantiated.” The Court stated, “It is sufficient to observe that such assertions, if raised, must be assessed on a case-to-case basis by the appropriate judicial forum. We emphasize a case-to-case approach because matters of this nature often involve intricate and layered complexities.”
A Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh remarked, “We also remain acutely attuned to the ground realities. As a Constitutional Court and the apex judicial body of the country, we bear the solemn responsibility of safeguarding justice for our entire population. 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.”
Senior Advocate Shashi Kiran appeared for the Petitioner.
Brief Facts
The Petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, argued for the need for gender-neutral laws in addressing domestic violence and harassment.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court remarked, “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 pointed out, “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.”
The Bench further explained, “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.”
“This Court has consistently held, in a catena of decisions, that the mere possibility or occasional misuse of a legal provision does not render it constitutionally infirm, either procedurally or substantively. 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,” the Court remarked.
“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 wellestablished 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,” the Bench held.
Consequently, the Court ordered, “In light of the foregoing discussion, we therefore find no reason to entertain the writ petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the Writ Petition.
Cause Title: Janshruti (People’s Voice) v. Union Of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 536)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Shashi Kiran; AOR Sadhana Sandhu; Advocates Satish Chandra, Sangeeta Bhalla, Ashna Singh, Vishal Singh Chandel and Anju Sen