The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a public interest litigation, which claimed that Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), now read as Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Terming the petition as wholly misconceived and misdirected, the Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice N Kotiswar Singh observed that Article 15 of the Constitution explicitly empowered a special law for the protection of women and children.
The allegation that the provision was being misused was vague and evasive, as no opinion could be formed while exercising jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution. Such an allegation, however, could be examined on a case-to-case basis, noted the Court.
The petition sought inter-alia balanced protection for all parties in matrimonial cases, mandatory preliminary investigation before filing of Section 498A IPC/domestic violence cases and legal protection against false complaints.
The Counsel appearing for the petitioner claimed that provisions like Section 498A IPC were being misused by women, adding that the petition cited instances related to such incidents.
The Bench, however, rejected the argument on the grounds that there may be a possibility of misuse, but a provision meant for the protection of women and to further women empowerment must not be attacked. Let the aggrieved parties approach the Court, it added.
When the counsel pointed out that domestic violence cases could only be be filed by women in India, the Apex Court said the country should maintain its sovereignty. Why should India follow other countries. They should be following India, it added
On prayers seeking guidelines with regard to maintenance, the top court of the country said that every case needed to be decided on its peculiar facts and circumstances.
It further refused to peruse the data collected from the National Crime Records Bureau, noting that the same could be put to better use in a particular case where a provision happened to be misused.
The Apex Court also declined the petitioner’s request to withdraw the petition with permission to file a better plea with more comprehensive data.
The Bench told the counsel representing the petitioner not to misuse the platform for a few instances here and there.
Regarding prayers to set up time limits for the adjudication of maintenance cases, the Apex Court observed that additional infrastructure would be required for expeditious disposal of cases, generating a financial burden, with the capacity to bear varying from state-to-state.
The Bench noted that the petitioner was expecting the Court to decide on policy matters, which were the prerogative of the Parliament.
Filed by NGO Janshruti (People’s Voice) through Advocate-on-Record Sadhana Sandhu, the PIL sought framing of guidelines for grant of maintenance and declaration of Sections 125-128 CrPC, Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, and related provisions in the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 as gender-neutral.
It sought amendment of Section 498A IPC to ensure balanced protection for all individuals involved in matrimonial disputes;
The plea prayed for mandatory preliminary investigations and evidence verification before filing of cases under Sections 498A IPC, 125 CrPC, and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005;
It further sought the establishment of mechanisms to compensate individuals falsely accused of matrimonial offences, along with streamlining of maintenance procedures and for courts to adhere to strict timelines (90 days) for resolving maintenance and alimony claims;
The plea prayed for a limit on maintenance durations for educated spouses to two years, enabling self-sufficiency;
It also demanded promotion of mediation and conciliation, while seeking to make mediation mandatory as the first step in resolving certified matrimonial mediators to disputes, involving facilitate amicable resolutions.
The plea prayed for the establishment of specialised matrimonial mediation courts to create multidisciplinary matrimonial dedicated expertise forums to efficiently and empathetically handle cases.
It sought enhancement of legal protections and accountability, including the introduction of penalties for filing false complaints under Section 182 IPC, as well as enforcement of standardised financial disclosure formats in all maintenance and alimony cases;
The petition prayed for the facilitation of online filing, virtual hearings, and digital case management systems to reduce delays and enhance accessibility and promotion of legal literacy and training, along with campaigns for public awareness, responsible use of matrimonial laws, and the consequences of misuse.
The plea sought provision of specialised training for law enforcement and judiciary on gender sensitivity and fair enforcement practices, besides consolidation of related cases so that all matrimonial disputes between the same parties were adjudicated in a single consolidated proceeding.
It also sought relief for false allegations and towards compensation to the victims of false complaints to safeguard their dignity and reputation.
The post Supreme Court rejects plea claiming Section 498A IPC violates Article 14 appeared first on India Legal.