JANSHRUTI (PEOPLE’S VOICE)versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

           [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2730 : 2025 INSC 536

                  Janshruti (People’s Voice)
                              v.
                    Union of India & Ors.
              (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 315 of 2025)
                            15 April 2025
[Surya Kant and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.]


                      Issue for Consideration
 Directions sought for the formulation of gender-neutral guidelines
 and legislation governing the filing of domestic violence and
 harassment complaints. Also, sought declaration regarding the
 constitutionality of s.498A of the Penal Code, 1860 (now s.84 of
 the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023)

                             Headnotes†
 Constitution of India – Art.32 – Penal Code, 1860 – s.498A –
 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – s.84 – Whether the impugned
 provision i.e. s.498A of IPC warrant judicial interference:
 Held: No – 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 enactment of this provision in
 question was prompted by the widespread and deeply entrenched
 exploitation of women through traditional practices such as the
 dowry system – 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 – Even in the context of s.498A, this
 Court has reiterated that while misuse must be guarded against,
 the provision cannot be trivialized or undermined merely because it
 has, in some instances, been invoked unscrupulously – 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. [Paras 4-7]
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                              2731

           Janshruti (People’s Voice) v. Union of India & Ors.


     Constitution of India – Arts.14 and 15 – Penal Code, 1860 –
     s.498A – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – s.84 – It was
     contended that s.498A violates Art.14 of the Constitution:
     Held: It is also trite that the impugned provisions were enacted
     in furtherance of the principle of positive discrimination envisaged
     u/Art.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,
     there is no justification to interfere with the legislative process in
     the present circumstances, nor this Court is 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 Art.14 of the Constitution of India is wholly
     misconceived and without merit. [Paras 8, 9]

     Penal Code, 1860 – s.498A – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 –
     s.84 – Misuse of provision – Duty of Court:
     Held: This Court emphasizes a case-to-case approach because
     matters of this nature often involve intricate and layered
     complexities – They require the court to pierce the veil and
     carefully examine the underlying facts and circumstances in order
     to arrive at a just and informed determination of what has truly
     transpired. [Para 10]

                              Case Law Cited
     Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India [2005] Supp. 1 SCR 730 :
     (2005) 6 SCC 281 : AIR 2005 SC 3100 – referred to.

                                 List of Acts
     Constitution of India; Penal Code, 1860; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
     2023.

                              List of Keywords
     Dowry; Section 498A of Penal Code, 1860; Misuse of provision;
     Duty of Court; Principle of Positive discrimination; Protection of
     Women; Doctrine of separation of powers; Judicial interference;
     Systematic abuse; Exploitation; Legislative Policy.
2732                                                          [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


                            Case Arising From
     CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.
     315 of 2025
     Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India

                         Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Petitioner:
     Ms. Shashi Kiran, Sr. Adv., Ms. Sadhana Sandhu, Dr. Satish
     Chandra, Ms. Sangeeta Bhalla, Ms. Ashna Singh, Vishal Singh
     Chandel, Ms. Anju Sen.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                    Order

1.   Delay condoned.
2.   This writ petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeks
     directions for the formulation of gender-neutral guidelines and
     legislation governing the filing of domestic violence and harassment
     complaints. It also prays for a declaration regarding the constitutionality
     of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (now Section 84 of
     the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023).
3.   We have heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner at length
     and have briefly examined the record. Notwithstanding the vehement
     submissions advanced, we are not inclined to entertain the petition
     or grant any of the reliefs sought therein.
4.   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.
5.   Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was, in fact, introduced by the
     Legislature through the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                         2733

               Janshruti (People’s Voice) v. Union of India & Ors.


      (Act 46 of 1983), with effect from 25.12.1983. The enactment of this
      provision was prompted by the widespread and deeply entrenched
      exploitation of women through traditional practices such as the dowry
      system. The Legislature recognized the pressing need for a specific
      legal provision to address the grave suffering inflicted upon married
      women as a result of dowry-related offences and cruelty, which had
      become a pervasive social menace in Indian society.
6.    Be that as it may, the Legislature, in its wisdom, has continued to
      retain this provision over the decades, presumably in recognition
      of the persistent and deep-rooted nature of the underlying social
      malaise. While it is true that instances of misuse have emerged
      over time—occasionally with the intent to harass families or extort
      money, such concerns by themselves, are rarely sufficient to warrant
      striking down a statutory provision or diluting its effect. 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. Even
      in the context of Section 498A, this Court has reiterated that while
      misuse must be guarded against, the provision cannot be trivialized
      or undermined merely because it has, in some instances, been
      invoked unscrupulously.1 However, this Court has also cautioned
      that it is not to be treated as a tool to prank assistance or as a
      means to ‘cry wolf’.
7.    In assessing the constitutionality of such penal provisions, it becomes
      imperative to strike a delicate balance. While it is acknowledged
      that certain individuals may face hardship due to the misuse of the
      provision, it is equally important to look beyond these instances and
      recognize 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.
8.    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


1    Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 3100.
2734                                                         [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


     make special laws for the protection and advancement of women,
     children and other disadvantaged groups.
9.   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.
10. In this vein, the argument regarding the alleged misuse of the
    provisions is vague and unsubstantiated. No definitive opinion on such
    claims can be rendered in the exercise of this Court’s writ jurisdiction
    under Article 32 of the Constitution. It is sufficient to observe that such
    assertions, if raised, must be assessed on a case-to-case basis by the
    appropriate judicial forum. We emphasize a case-to-case approach
    because matters of this nature often involve intricate and layered
    complexities. They require the court to pierce the veil and carefully
    examine the underlying facts and circumstances in order to arrive
    at a just and informed determination of what has truly transpired.
11. 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.
12. We also remain acutely attuned to the ground realities. As a
    Constitutional Court and the apex judicial body of the country, we
    bear the solemn responsibility of safeguarding justice for our entire
    population. The harsh truth is that dowry continues to persist as
    a deeply entrenched social evil, prevalent across vast sections of
    the country. A significant majority of such cases go unreported,
    with countless women compelled to endure injustice in silence.
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                    2735

              Janshruti (People’s Voice) v. Union of India & Ors.



     This underscores the continuing need for legal provisions such as
     Section 498A, which serve as vital instruments of protection and
     redressal for those most vulnerable.
13. In light of the foregoing discussion, we therefore find no reason to
    entertain the writ petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed.


     Result of the case: Writ Petition dismissed.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan