New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a PIL for declaring a dowry harassment and maintenance clauses “gender neutral” to prevent their “abuse”, saying the court cannot legislate the law, which depends on lawmakers to investigate the law.
At a PIL hearing submitted by a non-governmental organization, its lawyers pointed out that there were some provisions that were abused to harass the husband and his family.
However, Justice Surya Kant and Judge N Kotiswar Singh said: “We know this will be spicy news, but tell us what legal provisions are not abused?” It added that the aggrieved should turn to the court, not the NGO.
PIL seeks to produce IPC (Dowry Harassment) and CRPC Article 125 Article 498A to pay for the maintenance of “gender neutrality”.
The Supreme Court rejected the request, saying no provision that claims that women’s protection and authorization have been “abused”.
Surya Kant observed that every case needs to be decided based on its own facts and circumstances, and Surya Kant said: “If the husband or his family is victimized, the law must act accordingly. If a woman is harassed, the law must also rescue her. So what is wrong with the provision?”
“We don’t see any reason to intervene in the legislative policy/task behind Article 498A IPC, which is now called BNS Article 84,” the bench said.
It said that the violation of Article 14’s requirements was completely wrongly conceived and misleading, adding that Article 15 of the Constitution clearly granted parliament the power to create a special law to protect women and children.
The Supreme Court allegations said: “While exercising jurisdiction under article 32 of the Constitution, such charges can be observed, and the case can be reviewed based on the case.”
Lawyers for NGOs said that in India, domestic violence cases can only be filed by women, while abroad, even husbands can file such cases and seek maintenance.
At this point Justice Surya Kant told the lawyers: “So you want us to legislate. This is not court legislation. For this reason, the members of the parliament are there to investigate. We cannot veto a provision just because there are instances of abuse.”
A Supreme Court judge questioned the prayers in the petition, saying, “Why should we follow other countries? We remain sovereign.”
Attorneys say top courts may set some guidelines and speed up the case directly.
To this, the bench replied: “For expediting trials in such cases, we need more infrastructure. We need more district judges and courts. Instructions cannot be passed like this. Several factors are involved. Who will provide us with more funds? The state does not have enough funds.
Justice Surya Kant said the court could not intervene just because some of the articles were written in the media and were creating a view.
“Can you make a statement that no newlywed women were harassed for their dowry?” the bench asked the lawyer, adding that the court could not make a claim that the law was “abused.”
The lawyer said the NGO has been repeatedly receiving complaints about the abuse of the legal process and mentioned the National Crime Records Agency data.
The bench said it does not want to introduce the data at the moment and advised attorneys to keep it where appropriate to reference the data.
“We are not denying that these provisions are not abused, but that the court must investigate the case by case. One day, you will find a case where her husband beheaded a woman. Do you want us to apply this concept of “abuse” there? Don’t make such exhaustive allegations on a provision,” it said. ”
PIL (Voice of People) submitted by the NGO “Janshruti” seeks guiding principles to grant the maintenance and declaration of Sections 125-128 CRPC, Article 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, and Bharatiya Nagrik Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Bharatiya Nagrik suraksha sanhita as”an as’gendral nerral”.
Among other reliefs, it seeks to amend Article 498A IPC to ensure balanced protection for all persons involved in marriage disputes.
