Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 536
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).
3. We have heard the learned senior counsel for the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ARJUN BISHT
Date: 2025.04.22
17:08:47 IST
Reason:
petitioner at length and have briefly examined the record.
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
1
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’.
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
2025 INSC 536
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).
3. We have heard the learned senior counsel for the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ARJUN BISHT
Date: 2025.04.22
17:08:47 IST
Reason:
petitioner at length and have briefly examined the record.
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
1
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’.
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