The petitioner, Singh, argued that these laws adversely affect men.
NEW DELHI: On Monday, the Supreme Court rejected a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought to declare Sections 2, 3, 4, and 8A of the Dowry Prohibition Act unconstitutional. The Court suggested that the petitioner address the issue in Parliament instead.
“We are not inclined to entertain this. Dismissed. Take it to Parliament,” stated the two-judge bench, consisting of Justice BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran.
Singh, the petitioner, argued that these laws harm men, claiming their invalidity and requesting suitable directions. However, the Court found no merit in the case and dismissed it.
The PIL alleged misuse of women-centric laws, pointing to malice, irrationality, and inconsistencies in their enforcement. Singh contested the validity of provisions under the Dowry Prohibition Act, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, and the Indian Penal Code (IPC) related to cruelty against women, alleging these laws are misused.
The petitioner sought the Supreme Court’s intervention to protect men from false accusations and the misuse of these laws. Singh further argued that the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is religiously discriminatory and challenged the gender bias of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, claiming it discriminates against men.
The Prime Minister of India, the Union of India (UOI), and the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) were named as respondents in the PIL.
