Supreme Court Upholds 498A as Valid and Declines Call for Gender‑Neutral Overhaul

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh heard a writ petition under Article 32 filed by Janshruti (People’s Voice) challenging the constitutionality of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (re-designated as Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) and seeking directions for gender-neutral guidelines and legislation governing domestic violence and harassment complaints. The petition sought a declaration and wider reliefs asking the Court to revisit the statutory scheme governing dowry and marital cruelty offences.

The Court dismissed the petition and declined to issue the writs sought, holding that the impugned provision did not warrant judicial interference. The bench observed that judicial review in matters of legislative policy was circumscribed and applied established tests before striking down or modifying a statute. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “In this regard, we are of the considered view that the impugned provisions do not warrant judicial interference. This is so because it is well-settled law that courts refrain from intervening in matters of legislative policy or mandate unless the provision in question is: (i) devoid of reasonable justification or basis; (ii) actuated by mala fides or an ulterior motive; (iii) lacking a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved; or (iv) in violation of Fundamental Rights or any other constitutional provision.” The Court further noted that “the mere possibility or occasional misuse of a legal provision does not render it constitutionally infirm, either procedurally or substantively,” and cautioned that the provision was “not to be treated as a tool to prank assistance or as a means to ‘cry wolf’.”

Background The petition contended that provisions criminalising dowry‑related cruelty and harassment required reassessment, urging gender‑neutral measures and legislative reform in light of alleged misuse. The petitioner sought a declaration on the constitutionality of Section 498A (now Section 84, BNS 2023) and asked the Court to direct the framing of gender‑neutral guidelines for filing domestic violence and harassment complaints. The Registry recorded condonation of delay in refiling/curing defects.

The Court examined the legislative history and purpose of Section 498A, noting that Parliament enacted the provision by the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983, effective 25.12.1983, to address entrenched exploitation of women through dowry and related cruelty. The bench accepted the proposition that the statute aimed to protect a vulnerable section of society and observed that the provision was enacted in furtherance of the principle of positive discrimination under Article 15 of the Constitution. The judgment cited Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India (AIR 2005 SC 3100) and reiterated that occasional misuse could not, by itself, invalidate legislative measures created to redress systemic social evils. The Court emphasised that allegations of misuse must be tested on the facts and “assessed on a case‑to‑case basis by the appropriate judicial forum,” and concluded that there was no basis to transgress separation‑of‑powers restraints by entertaining the sweeping reliefs sought. The writ petition was dismissed and all pending applications were disposed of; no interim directions were issued and no change to the statutory scheme was directed.

Case No.: 2025 INSC 536 (Reportable); Diary No. 2152/2025 Case Title: Janshruti (People’s Voice) v. Union of India & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Shashi Kiran, Senior Advocate; Ms. Sadhana Sandhu, AOR; Dr. Satish Chandra, Advocate; Ms. Sangeeta Bhalla, Advocate; Ms. Ashna Singh, Advocate; Mr. Vishal Singh Chandel, Advocate; Ms. Anju Sen, Advocate For the Respondent(s): (No counsel for respondents recorded in the order)