SC: GENUINE DOMESTIC CRUELTY CASES FAR OUTNUMBER 498A MISUSE INSTANCES:

SC: GENUINE DOMESTIC CRUELTY CASES FAR OUTNUMBER 498A MISUSE INSTANCES:

While dismissing a challenge to the constitutionality of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (now renumbered as Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), the Supreme Court held that the mere possibility of misuse of a legal provision cannot serve as a valid basis for declaring it unconstitutional.

The Court acknowledged that instances of misuse of the provision do exist; however, it emphasized that such cases are far outweighed by the vast number of genuine cases where the provision has served as an essential safeguard against domestic violence. The Court underscored the importance of the law in protecting victims of cruelty within matrimonial homes, stating that for every misuse, there are hundreds of legitimate cases justifying its continued existence.

"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 said.

The Court emphasized that, as a Constitutional Court, it must remain mindful of prevailing social realities while interpreting and upholding the law. It observed that the practice of dowry continues to persist in various parts of the country, often deeply entrenched in societal norms and expectations. The Court noted that despite legal prohibitions, numerous cases of dowry-related harassment and cruelty within matrimonial homes still occur, and a significant number of these violations go unreported due to social stigma, fear of retaliation, or lack of support systems. In light of these realities, the Court underscored the continued relevance and necessity of legal provisions like Section 498A (now Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) to provide protection and recourse to victims of domestic cruelty.

"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."

The Court rejected a public interest litigation that sought, among other things, balanced legal protection for all parties involved in matrimonial disputes, a mandatory preliminary investigation prior to the registration of cases under Section 498A of the IPC/domestic violence laws, and safeguards against false complaints.

The PIL was filed by an organization named Janshruthi (People's Voice), but the bench found no justification to interfere with the legislative intent and policy underlying Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The Court firmly stated that the argument claiming the provision violates Article 14 of the Constitution was entirely unfounded and misguided. It further noted that Article 15 of the Constitution explicitly authorizes the State to enact special laws aimed at protecting women and children, thereby validating the legitimacy and necessity of such provisions in addressing domestic violence and cruelty.

The Supreme Court, in its observations, upheld the constitutionality of Section 498A of the IPC (now Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita), rejecting the plea that the provision violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that the provision was enacted under the principle of positive discrimination authorized by Article 15, which allows the State to make special laws for the protection of women, children, and other disadvantaged groups.

The Court stated that the possibility or occasional misuse of a legal provision does not make it unconstitutional. It reiterated that while misuse of Section 498A must be guarded against, it should not undermine or trivialize the law's core intent, which is to protect vulnerable individuals from domestic abuse. The Court cautioned against using the provision frivolously or as a tool for false complaints, noting that such misuse must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

The Court further held that general allegations of misuse raised in a public interest petition under Article 32 are insufficient grounds to challenge the constitutional validity of the law. It concluded that any hardship caused by misuse does not outweigh the law’s constitutionally valid objective of safeguarding those vulnerable to systemic abuse and exploitation, and that the judiciary must respect the separation of powers by not interfering with legislative policy without compelling reasons.