Domestic cruelty, dowry harassment: Supreme Court rules misuse of Section 498A cannot be a ground to strike it down
In a significant decision delivered on 15.04.2025, the Supreme Court firmly refused to interfere with the constitutionality of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (now Section 84 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023). While acknowledging that there have been certain instances of misuse of the provision, the Court emphasized that hundreds of genuine cases of domestic cruelty and dowry harassment continue to exist, and that mere potential misuse of law cannot be a ground to dilute or strike down a law meant to protect women.A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh dismissed a writ petition filed by Janshruti (People’s Voice) under Article 32 of the Constitution, which empowers citizens to directly approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights. The petition sought to formulate gender-neutral guidelines for domestic violence complaints and challenged the constitutionality of Section 498A, on the ground that it is frequently misused. The petitioner argued that false cases under Section 498A of IPC have led to harassment of husbands and their families, and contended that the law in its present form, violates Article 14 (Equality) of the Constitution.
Supreme Court Refusal to Intervene:
After hearing detailed submissions, the Supreme Court declined to entertain the petition, holding that the impugned provision does not warrant any judicial interference. This is so because it is a well settled principle of constitutional law that courts do not interfere with legislative policy unless a law is arbitrary, lacks rational basis, is tainted by mala fides, or violates fundamental rights. The Court observed as follows:“……..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.”
The bench clarified that Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code does not meet any of these thresholds. It observed that the provision has a clear legislative objective, and is backed by social necessity, and continues to serve an important protective function.Before forming its conclusion, the Court traced and examined the legislative history of Section 498A, noting that it was introduced by the legislature through the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983 (Act 46 of 1983), with effect from 25.12.1983, in response to the widespread cruelty against married women, particularly in context of the Dowry demands.The Court acknowledged that the dowry harassment and domestic cruelty remain harsh realities of the Indian Society. At the same time, also took note of concerns regarding the misuse of the impugned provisions. However, it made a crucial distinction that a misuse of law does not render the law unconstitutional.
In this regard, the Court observed:
“….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……”Relying on earlier precedents, including Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India, the Court reiterated that “mere possibility of abuse is no ground to strike down a provision”. It emphasized that the appropriate response to misuse lies in careful judicial scrutiny on a case-by-case basis, not in dismantling the law altogether.The Court further cautioned against trivializing Section 498A or portraying it as a tool for harassment, warning that such narratives risk undermining protection for genuine victims.“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.While assessing the constitutionality of such penal provisions, the Court adopted a balanced approach, looking beyond the instances of misuse and recognizing 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.A key constitutional anchor for this reasoning lies in Article 15(3) of the Constitution, which embodies the principle of positive discrimination and expressly empowers the State to make special laws for the protection and advancement of women, children and other disadvantaged groups. The Court held that Section 498A of the IPC is a classic example of such positive discrimination. Therefore, held that the plea that Section 498A of the IPC violates Article 14 and described it as “wholly misconceived and without merit”.
The Court observed:
“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.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.“The Court greatly placed emphasis on ground realities, observing that while discussions around the misuse have gained momentum, a far larger number of genuine cases remain unreported due to fear, social stigma, and lack of support.The Bench expressed concern over recent trends where some individuals have even publicly flaunted dowry exchanges, highlighting how deeply rooted the problem remains. These disturbing realities, the Court observed, reinforce the continued necessity of a strong legal deterrent such as Section 498A of the IPC, to combat domestic cruelty and dowry related abuse.The Court further invoked the doctrine of separation of powers, and underscored that it is not the role of constitutional courts to rewrite or dilute legislation merely because alternative policy choices are suggested. Judicial interference is warranted only when a law violates constitutional mandates. Unless Parliament chooses to amend the law, courts must respect legislative wisdom, particularly where the law addresses a persistent social evil.In light of the foregoing discussions and reasons dismissed the writ petition.(Vatsal Chandra is a Delhi-based Advocate practicing before the courts of Delhi NCR.)
