In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the constitutional validity of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which criminalises cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a woman, and dismissed the contention that it violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
A Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh was hearing a petition that challenged the provision on grounds of alleged misuse and discrimination, arguing that it unfairly excludes men from seeking protection under similar circumstances.
Rejecting the plea, the Court observed,
“The plea that such provision (Section 498A IPC) is violative of Article 14 of Constitution is wholly misconceived and misdirected. Article 15 explicitly empowers to enact a special law for protection of women, etc. This (misuse) needs to be examined on case-to-case basis.”
The petitioner’s counsel had contended that unlike many other countries where domestic violence laws apply equally to all genders, India’s legal framework grants this right only to women. In response, the Court firmly asserted,
“We maintain our sovereignty. Why should we follow others, they should follow us.”
The Bench acknowledged concerns over misuse but maintained that such concerns do not warrant striking down the provision.
“There are cases of misuse of every law. Do you want us to make sweeping statements? There may be instance where the women have been victimised. There might be cases where the provision would have been misused. So it is the duty of the court to decide each case based on its peculiar facts,” the Court said.
The judges emphasised the “salutary intent” behind Section 498A, which is to protect women from harmful and oppressive practices prevalent in society. They reiterated that courts are competent to evaluate allegations of misuse on a case-by-case basis.
While acknowledging that misuse of domestic violence laws has been flagged by several courts in the past, the Supreme Court refused to dilute or invalidate the provision, asserting the need for targeted legal safeguards to protect vulnerable groups.
The decision reinforces the judiciary’s consistent stance that while abuse of legal provisions must be checked, their constitutional purpose in protecting women’s rights cannot be undermined.
