Janshruti (People&Rsquos Voice) vs Union Of India

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2025 [DIARY NO.2152/2025]

JANSHRUTI (PEOPLE’S VOICE) PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENTS

O R D E R

1. Delay condoned.

2. This writ petition, filed under Article 32 of the

Constitution, seeks directions for the formulation of

gender-neutral guidelines and legislation governing the

filing of domestic violence and harassment complaints. It

also prays for a declaration regarding the

constitutionality of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 (now Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023).

Signature Not Verified

3. We have heard the learned senior counsel for the Digitally signed by ARJUN BISHT Date: 2025.04.22 17:08:47 IST petitioner at length and have briefly examined the record. Reason:

Notwithstanding the vehement submissions advanced, we are

1 not inclined to entertain the petition or grant any of the

reliefs sought therein.

4. In this regard, we are of the considered view that

the impugned provisions do not warrant judicial

interference. This is so because it is well-settled law

that courts refrain from intervening in matters of

legislative policy or mandate unless the provision in

question is: (i) devoid of reasonable justification or

basis; (ii) actuated by mala fides or an ulterior motive;

(iii) lacking a rational nexus with the object sought to be

achieved; or (iv) in violation of Fundamental Rights or any

other constitutional provision.

5. Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was, in fact,

introduced by the Legislature through the Criminal Law

(Second Amendment) Act, 1983 (Act 46 of 1983), with effect

from 25.12.1983. The enactment of this provision was

prompted by the widespread and deeply entrenched

exploitation of women through traditional practices such as

the dowry system. The Legislature recognized the pressing

need for a specific legal provision to address the grave

suffering inflicted upon married women as a result of

dowry-related offences and cruelty, which had become a

pervasive social menace in Indian society.

6. Be that as it may, the Legislature, in its wisdom,

has continued to retain this provision over the decades,

2 presumably in recognition of the persistent and deep-rooted

nature of the underlying social malaise. While it is true

that instances of misuse have emerged over time—

occasionally with the intent to harass families or extort

money, such concerns by themselves, are rarely sufficient

to warrant striking down a statutory provision or diluting

its effect. 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.1 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’.

7. 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. It is aimed at protecting a vulnerable

section of society that often requires legal support and

1 Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 3100.

3 institutional safeguards to shield them from systemic abuse

and exploitation.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. In this vein, the argument regarding the alleged

misuse of the provisions is vague and unsubstantiated. No

definitive opinion on such claims can be rendered in the

exercise of this Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 32

of the Constitution. 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. They require

4 the court to pierce the veil and carefully examine the

underlying facts and circumstances in order to arrive at a

just and informed determination of what has truly

transpired.

11. 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.

12. 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

5 vital instruments of protection and redressal for those

most vulnerable.

13. In light of the foregoing discussion, we therefore

find no reason to entertain the writ petition, which is,

accordingly, dismissed.

...................J. (SURYA KANT)

...................J. (NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH)

New Delhi April 15, 2025

6 ITEM NO.6 COURT NO.3 SECTION PIL-W

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)………... Diary No(s). 2152/2025

JANSHRUTI (PEOPLE’S VOICE) Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)

(IA No.76561/2025 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS)

Date : 15-04-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH

For Petitioner(s) :Ms. Shashi Kiran, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Sadhana Sandhu, AOR Dr. Satish Chandra, Adv.

Ms. Sangeeta Bhalla, Adv.

Ms. Ashna Singh, Adv.

Mr. Vishal Singh Chandel, Adv.

Ms. Anju Sen, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

1. Delay condoned.

2. The Writ Petition is dismissed in terms of the signed

reportable order.

3. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(ARJUN BISHT) (PREETHI T.C.) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

(signed reportable order is placed on the file)

7