NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has said it was cognisant of the growing discourse highlighting instances where the dowry harassment 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," a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh said.
Maintaining that the court also remained acutely attuned to the ground realities, the bench said as a constitutional court and the apex judicial body of the country, it bears the solemn responsibility of safeguarding justice for our entire population but the harsh reality is that the dowry continued to persist as a deeply entrenched social evil, prevalent across vast sections of the country.
The court noted it is true that instances of misuse of dowry laws have emerged over time, occasionally with the intent to harass families or extort money, however, such concerns by themselves are rarely sufficient to warrant striking down a statutory provision or diluting its effect.
Declining to entertain a plea for gender-neutral guidelines in such cases, the bench pointed out, the Legislature, in its wisdom, has continued to retain this provision over the decades, presumably in recognition of the persistent and deep-rooted nature of the underlying social malaise.
The court emphasised 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 recognise that the provision serves a constitutionally sound objective. It is aimed at protecting a vulnerable section of society that often requires legal support and institutional safeguards to shield them from systemic abuse and exploitation," the bench said.
The court said the harsh truth is that dowry continues to persist and a significant majority of such cases go unreported, with countless women compelled to endure injustice in silence.
This warrants the continuing need for legal provisions such as Section 498A IPC, serving as vital instruments of protection and redressal for those most vulnerable, the court felt.
In a plea filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, NGO Janshruti (People's Voice) sought directions for the formulation of gender-neutral guidelines and legislation governing the filing of domestic violence and harassment complaints. It also sought a declaration regarding the constitutionality of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (now Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023).
The bench, however, said, "We are of the considered view that provisions do not warrant judicial interference".
It pointed out, 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 trivialised or undermined merely because it has, in some instances, been invoked 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’," the bench said.
The court also said it is well-settled law that courts refrain from intervening in matters of legislative policy or mandate unless the provision in question is devoid of reasonable justification or basis; actuated by mala fides or an ulterior motive; lacking a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved; or in violation of fundamental rights or any other constitutional provision.
"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 is wholly misconceived and without merit," the bench said.
The bench termed the argument regarding the alleged misuse of the provisions as vague and unsubstantiated.
The court opined, 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," the bench emphasised.
