LEGAL UPDATES

There’s a law in India called Section 498A (now called Section 84 in the new law), which is meant to protect married women from cruelty by their husband or his family especially in cases involving dowry or domestic abuse.

Some people went to the Supreme Court and said this law is being misused by some women to file false cases, and that it’s unfair to men. They wanted the Court to either strike it down or make big changes to how it works.

The Supreme Court refused to cancel or weaken the law. Here’s what the judges basically said:

• Every law can be misused. That doesn’t mean the law is bad.
• For example, people misuse laws about theft, but we don’t cancel those laws.

• The Court said that dowry and domestic violence still happen a lot, even today.
• Many women suffer silently and never report it.
• So we still need strong laws like this to protect those women.

• The Indian Constitution says the government can make special laws to protect women and children.
• So, even if this law only protects women, it’s not unfair or against equality.

• If someone files a false case, that’s wrong — and there are ways to deal with it.
• But the solution is to improve how the police and courts handle such cases, not to remove a law that helps thousands of genuine victims.

• Some people argued this law treats men unfairly and violates the right to equality.
• The Court said that argument is mistaken  helping women who are more likely to suffer abuse is not discrimination, it's justice.

The Court said it understands that some people may misuse this law. But that doesn’t make the law itself bad or unfair. Most people who use it actually need it. So the law stays.

• Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (now Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) criminalizes cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a woman.
• It was introduced in 1983 as a response to rising dowry-related deaths and domestic abuse.
• Punishment: Up to 3 years imprisonment and fine.
• It is a cognizable (police can arrest without warrant) and non-bailable offence.

• The petitioner argued that Section 498A is being misused, and therefore violates Article 14 (Right to Equality).
• The Court rejected this, relying on the legal principle that:
  "Mere potential or occasional misuse of a provision does not render it unconstitutional."

• Y. Abraham Ajith v. Inspector of Police (2004) – SC held that misuse alone isn’t a ground to strike down a penal provision.
• Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India (2005) – Misuse of a law doesn't invalidate it constitutionally.

• Article 15(1) prohibits discrimination on grounds of sex.
• But Article 15(3) allows the State to make “special provisions for women and children.”
  The Court held:
  “Section 498A was enacted under Article 15(3) to protect women from cruelty and is therefore constitutionally valid.”

• A special law for women, even if not gender-neutral, is not discriminatory, but a form of affirmative action (positive discrimination).

• The Court emphasized the legislature’s domain in creating or amending laws.
• Judicial review cannot be exercised merely to question legislative wisdom, unless:
  
  • The law is arbitrary or violates fundamental rights, which Section 498A does not.
  • “Courts cannot interfere with legislative policy unless it violates constitutional provisions.”

• The petitioner argued that men are discriminated against under this provision.
• However, the Court applied the test of reasonable classification:
  
  • The classification (i.e., law only for women) must be:
    
    1. Based on intelligible differentia (i.e., special vulnerability of women in matrimonial homes),
    2. Have a rational nexus to the objective of the law (i.e., protection from cruelty).
  • ✅ Section 498A passed both tests.

• The Court noted that abuse of legal provisions can be curbed procedurally:
  
  • Judicial oversight, investigative guidelines, compounding, etc.
• However, constitutional invalidation is not the remedy for procedural abuse.

• The PIL was dismissed as:
  
  • Misconceived under Article 32 (which provides remedies for violation of fundamental rights).
  • Lacked legal merit to invalidate the section.
  • Did not demonstrate that the provision violated the basic structure or fundamental rights.

• Section 498A / Section 84 BNS is a constitutionally valid provision under the framework of Articles 14, 15(3), and 21.
• Occasional misuse does not render a statute invalid.
• Laws enacted for protection of women are permitted under Article 15(3) as a part of positive discrimination.
• Judicial restraint is necessary in matters of legislative policy.