Case Name: JANUSHRUTI (PEOPLE’S VOICE) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Case Number: 2025 INSC 536
Date: 15 APRIL, 2025
Quorum: JUSTICE SURYA KANT, JUSTICE NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH
FACTS OF THE CASE
The petition was filed through Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The petition demanded the Supreme Court to direct the formulation of nondiscriminatory protocols for domestic violence and harassment complaint submissions to the law. The petition made a request for a constitutional determination of the validity of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which now exists as Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. People’s Voice Janshruti filed their petition at the Supreme Court through its Article 32 extraordinary writ authority which lets people ask for remedies regarding violated fundamental rights. The Court was asked to address their view of multiple shortcomings within the domestic violence and harassment sector of existing legal structures. They sought legal change and asked for the validity of a major provision of the Indian Penal Code to be reviewed.
ISSUES
- Whether mandatory gender-neutral standards should exist when investigating domestic violence and harassment incidents?
- Whether section 498A of Indian Penal Code is constitutional?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Article 32 of the Constitution of India
- Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Article 15 of the Constitution of India
ARGUMENTS
PETITIONER’S CONTENTION:
The petitioners demanded new legislation that would be gender-neutral and argued that existing guidelines along with laws exhibited prejudice. Furthermore the petitioner sought to challenge the constitutional integrity of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code due to its misuse. Judicial findings suggest that this challenge exists because of incorrect use of this specific provision to target families while extracting money via intimidation. Petitioners maintained that Section 498A and other legal provisions faced misinterpretation through which innocent individuals and families underwent harassment due to money extortion and personal revenge. The judges explained how the protective law had turned into an instrument of abuse so a constitutional review was needed to establish gender-balance in all laws.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION:
According to the respondent the Union of India the provisions of Section 498A require no judicial intervention. The legal challenge to Section 498A requires judicial abstention unless the provision lacks foundational grounds or contains illicit motives or lacks essential relating factors to its goal or violates fundamental guarantees. The section 498A was intended by the legislature to safeguard women from dowry offenses and cruelty crimes that spread as a major problem throughout Indian society. Analysis from the respondent confirmed that the legislature kept this provision effective through all successive legislative periods because they saw the social problem as deeply ingrained and continuing over time. The Indian government supported Section 498A because it protected against the hereditary abuse of dowry together with the violence faced by women. The legislators established clear purposes for the law and courts needed to exercise restraint when dealing with legislative social policies.
ANALYSIS
The Court assessed the challenge against Section 498A by examining its purpose which was designed to fix exploitation of women primarily through the dowry system. The Court approved the arguments about Section 498A misuse especially regarding families being harassed for money yet maintained that occasional improper use alone does not make the law unconstitutionally invalid. The court emphasized that the valid constitutional purpose of safeguarding a defenseless social segment should remain the central focus while examining the hardships encountered by persons due to improper use of the legal provision. Section 498A was enacted to support positive discrimination mentioned under Article 15 of the Constitution that allows the State to develop protective measures for women alongside children and additional disadvantaged groups. The court declared that the Article 14-based challenge did not have valid grounds. The court emphasized that dowry continues to be a problem while the nation requires protective measures such as Section 498A to preserve protected rights. Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code operates to combat specific dowry exploitation against women because both lawmakers and the Court designed it exclusively for this purpose. Within this judgment the Court considered complaints about Section 498A misuse against its fundamental function to protect defenseless communities. As a valid exercise of Article 15 powers about protecting vulnerable groups the state could enact protective legislation according to this ruling.
JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court made a decision to reject the petition. The Court refused to accept the petition along with all the claimed relief requests. The Court determined that legislative process needed no interference and declined to breach established limits of the principle of separation of powers. The Court found that the objections about provisions misuse lacked concrete evidence to support them. The Supreme Court chose to stay out of the matter because it recognized the parliamentary powers and established boundary between different branches of government. The Superior Court judged that the petitioners lacked specific factual proof to support their allegations of law misuse.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court confirmed the legal validity of Section 498A by acknowledging how this provision safeguards women from domestic abuse combined with dowry harassment. The Court recognized possible abuse despite which the law remained valid as judicial supervision would not fix the problem. According to the Court the protection of Section 498A should remain in effect because dowry persists as a strong social evil while demanding individualized handling of complaints about misuse. According to the Supreme Court Section 498A continues to protect women from domestic abuse and dowry-related harassment. Despite acknowledging potential misuse of this law the Court decided not to dismantle it because the single occurrence was insufficient reason for elimination. The court supported evidence-based examinations of dowry misuse claims to show that safeguarding laws should remain because the societal problem of dowry continues to exist.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY RIMPLEPREET KAUR
