Summary
A writ petition under Article 32 seeking gender-neutral domestic-violence legislation and a declaration on the constitutionality of Section 498A IPC (now Section 84 BNS) was dismissed. The Court held that courts do not interfere with legislative policy unless the provision lacks a rational basis or violates the Constitution, and that occasional misuse of a penal provision does not make it unconstitutional.
Issues
- Whether the Supreme Court should, under Article 32, direct the framing of gender-neutral guidelines or legislation on domestic violence and harassment complaints.
- Whether Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is unconstitutional, in particular as violating Article 14, on account of its alleged misuse.
Provisions considered
- Article 32, Constitution of IndiaThe petition was filed under Article 32. The Court declined to entertain it, observing that vague and unsubstantiated claims of misuse cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction and must be tested case by case before the appropriate forum. (¶¶ 2, 3, 10, 13)
- Article 14, Constitution of IndiaThe contention that Section 498A IPC violates Article 14 was held wholly misconceived, given the legislative intent and the rationale for the provision; interference would transgress the separation of powers. (¶ 9)
- Article 15, Constitution of IndiaSection 498A was treated as a measure of positive discrimination under Article 15, which empowers the State to make special laws for the protection and advancement of women, children and other disadvantaged groups. (¶ 8)
- Section 498A, Penal Code, 1860The Court traced the provision to the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983 enacted to address dowry-related cruelty, noted that the Legislature has retained it, and held that instances of misuse do not justify striking it down or diluting it; it remains a vital safeguard for victims of domestic cruelty. (¶¶ 5, 6, 7, 11, 12)
- Section 84, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023Noted as the provision now corresponding to Section 498A IPC, whose constitutionality the petition questioned. (¶ 2)
Held
- Courts refrain from intervening in matters of legislative policy unless the provision is devoid of reasonable justification, actuated by mala fides, lacks a rational nexus with its object, or violates Fundamental Rights or another constitutional provision. (¶ 4)
- The mere possibility or occasional misuse of a legal provision does not render it constitutionally infirm, procedurally or substantively; while misuse of Section 498A must be guarded against and it is not to be used to 'cry wolf', the provision cannot be trivialised or undermined because it has sometimes been invoked unscrupulously. (¶¶ 6, 7)
- Section 498A IPC furthers positive discrimination under Article 15 and serves a constitutionally sound objective of protecting a vulnerable section of society; the argument that it violates Article 14 is misconceived and interfering would breach the separation of powers. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9)
- Allegations of misuse are vague and unsubstantiated and cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction under Article 32; they must be examined case by case by the appropriate judicial forum, which must look at the underlying facts to determine what truly transpired. (¶ 10)
- Dowry remains a deeply entrenched social evil and most cases go unreported, which underscores the continuing need for Section 498A as an instrument of protection and redressal. (¶¶ 11, 12)
Result
Delay condoned; writ petition dismissed.