Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court rejected a plea to make Section 498A gender neutral, stating that the law must protect women from matrimonial cruelty.
- The Court emphasized that in the vast majority of cases, women remain the primary victims of harassment and abuse within matrimonial homes.
- The PIL suggested reforms including making Section 498A gender neutral, mandating preliminary investigations before arrests, and enforcing compulsory mediation.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to entertain a plea seeking to make Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (now Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) gender neutral, stating that isolated instances of misuse cannot justify changes to a law enacted to safeguard women from cruelty in matrimonial homes.
The Court emphasized that in the vast majority of cases, women remain the primary victims of harassment and abuse within matrimonial homes. It reiterated that each case must be evaluated on its individual merits.
The Court emphasized that in the vast majority of cases, women remain the primary victims of harassment and abuse within matrimonial homes. It reiterated that each case must be evaluated on its individual merits.
The PIL was filed by NGO Janshruti, which urged the Court to address what it termed as the “misuse and application” of matrimonial laws, and called for reforms including making Section 498A gender neutral, mandating preliminary investigations before arrests, and enforcing compulsory mediation. It also suggested enforcing the 60-day limit for deciding maintenance cases.
However, the bench firmly stated that the power to amend such laws lies solely with the legislature:
“Representatives of 142 crore people are in Parliament. It is their prerogative to decide the contours of such legislation. As constitutional courts, we intervene only when we find a vacuum in the legal framework.”
On the practicality of enforcing a strict 60-day timeline for maintenance decisions, Justice Surya Kant questioned the logistical feasibility, pointing to the need for significant judicial infrastructure and resources.
“Do you understand how many more civil courts and magistrates would be required for this? Who will create the infrastructure, recruit judicial officers and staff?”
Dismissing the PIL, the Court concluded that such structural and procedural reforms depend on the financial capabilities and willingness of individual states, in consultation with their respective High Courts
