Supreme Court reserves verdict on 498A plea

Must Read

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract....

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish...

Follow us

Facts

The SC on 23rd April reserved its verdict on petitions seeking restoration its verdict of the stringency of Section 498A of IPC which provides for the arrest of the husband and his relatives on the complaint of a wife alleging cruelty meted out to her because of dowry.

In the course of the hearing on the question of reconsideration of the 2017 apex court judgement in Rajesh Sharma , diluting the efficacy of section 498A of the IPC, Senior Counsel Indu Malhotra, having been appointed Amicus Curiae in the writ petition by NGO Nyayadhar, advanced submissions in respect of the directions issues in the said judgment.

Petitioners being, senior advocates Indu Malhotra and Indira Jaising brought up the fault in the SC’s July 27, 2017, judgement by a two- judge bench in diluting the arrest provision and said the IPC provision was enacted to protect women from ill treatment at her matrimonial home by husbands and in laws as the legislature believed that dowry had a chilling effect on the institution of marriage.

Referring to the original petition Indira jaising advanced,” the simple prayer in the petition was for quashing the FIR, in which behalf usually the(1990 apex court judgment in) bhajan lal(state of Haryana v.ch. Bhajan Lal ) is followed . the woman in the main matter in Rajesh Sharma had filed a complaint under sections 199 and 200 of the Cr.P. C. a complain is different from the FIR in the sense that the former involves the intervention of a Magistrate who, upon recording evidence , determines whether to issue the summons.

to tackle the concerns regarding frivolous and vexatious complaints, section 182 of the IPC may be resorted to”, added Ms. Malhotra.

The chief Justice on 23 rd april said “ we are not dealing with the facts of the case. The judgment in Rajesh Sharma binds the parties thereto. This is not an appeal.. we shall see if the directions fill in the gaps in consonance with the spirit of Section 498A and validly under Article 142.”

Bench

The bench was consisted of Justice Deepak Mishra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud said it agreed with the petitioners’ plea that the two judge bench’s decision to dilute the stringency of Section 498A did not co-relate with the situation presented by the petition.

The verdict on 498A clarified that if protection of women in matrimonial homes was needed through a stringent provision, at the same time, one could not lose sight of possible abuse of the section to violate the liberty of the husband and his relatives.

Judgment

The bench reserved its judgment on 23rd  April.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board & Anr., via video-conferencing. Deeming the...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish Bisht & Anr. v. State...

Madras High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against National Stock Exchange For Lack Of Merit

In the case of A. Kumar v. Financial Intelligence Unit & Ors., A. Kumar filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution...

The Federal Appeals Court Holds Trump’s Diversion of Military Funds To Build the Wall To Be Unlawful

The Federal Appeals Court held that US President Donald Trump’s diversion of military funds to build the wall is unlawful. A grey area in the...

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Filed Challenging the Judgment of Madras High Court in Ganesan v. State Represented by Its Inspector of Police

An appeal was filed before the Supreme court, challenging the judgment & order of Madras High Court. The Supreme Court upheld the HC judgment...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -