New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by an NGO seeking gender neutrality in laws related to dowry harassment and maintenance, saying such matters fall within the legislative domain and not the judiciary.
The PIL, filed by NGO Janshruti (People’s Voice), urged the apex court to declare Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, among others, as gender-neutral. It also asked for guidelines for maintenance and amendments to ensure equal legal protection for men in matrimonial disputes.
A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice N Kotiswar Singh, hearing the matter, questioned the basis of the petition. “We understand this would make a spicy news item, but tell us which provisions in law are not being misused?” Justice Kant remarked during the proceedings.
The NGO’s counsel argued that existing laws are frequently misused, resulting in harassment of husbands and their families. The bench, however, said such claims could not justify altering statutory provisions. “Every case must be assessed on its own merits,” Justice Kant said. “If there is abuse by the husband’s side, the law must protect the woman. If it is the other way around, the law should act accordingly.”
“We see no reason to interfere with the legislative policy/mandate behind Section 498A IPC, now read as Section 84 of the BNS,” the bench said.
The plea that such provisions were violative of Article 14 is wholly misconceived and misdirected, it said, adding Article 15 of the Constitution explicitly empowers Parliament to enact a special law for the protection of women and children.
Refusing to entertain the plea under Article 32 of the Constitution, the bench said, “The allegation that the provision was being misused is vague and evasive.” It maintained that such concerns should be examined within the framework of individual cases rather than through blanket judicial intervention.
On the NGO’s argument that domestic violence laws abroad allow men to file complaints, Justice Kant responded, “So you want us to legislate. It is not for the court to legislate. Parliamentarians are there to look into it.”
The bench further questioned the need to draw comparisons with other jurisdictions. “Why should we follow other countries? We maintain our sovereignty,” Justice Kant said.
Responding to the suggestion that the court frame guidelines and expedite such cases, the bench pointed to infrastructural and administrative limitations. “We need more magistrates and courts. These are not matters we can address through judicial orders alone,” the bench noted.
When the counsel referred to National Crime Records Bureau data indicating misuse of these provisions, the court declined to delve into statistics, suggesting they be raised in appropriate proceedings.
“We are not denying misuse occurs, but generalisations cannot be the basis for judicial action,” the bench observed. “One day, you’ll come across a case where a woman was beheaded. Do we apply the ‘misuse’ argument there too?”
The court concluded that no case had been made out to interfere with the legislative mandate, thereby dismissing the PIL.