Does Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Strike the Right Balance Between Protection and Fairness?

In countless homes across India, the softest cries are often the most ignored—those muffled behind closed doors, from wives tormented by domestic cruelty. For decades, Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, now replaced by Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), stood as a legal fortress for these unheard voices. Yet in the same breath, it has been accused of turning into a sword rather than a shield—misused, misinterpreted, and mired in controversies of false implications.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in Janshruti (People’s Voice) v. Union of India & Ors. (2025) brings renewed focus to the delicate balance the law seeks to achieve—between protecting vulnerable women from domestic cruelty and ensuring fairness and due process for the accused.

Background: The Petition and the Provision

The petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution sought a dual relief: first, to declare Section 84 of BNS unconstitutional for allegedly being gender-biased and misused; second, to frame gender-neutral guidelines for domestic violence laws.

Section 84 of the BNS (formerly Section 498A IPC) criminalises cruelty by a husband or his relatives toward a woman, particularly for dowry-related harassment. The challenge raised was not novel—arguments around its misuse and alleged reverse discrimination have echoed in legal forums for years. However, what made this case significant was its timing in a new legal framework under BNS, and the backdrop of growing demands for gender-neutral laws.

Supreme Court’s Analysis: Legislative Wisdom Over Judicial Overreach

The two-judge bench of Justices Surya Kant and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh refused to interfere with the legislative policy. The judgment emphasised that courts must refrain from striking down provisions unless they:

• lack a rational nexus to their legislative goal,
• are actuated by mala fide,
• are without reasonable basis, or
• violate fundamental rights.

The Court held that Section 84 BNS is none of these. Instead, it is a carefully calibrated response to entrenched patriarchy and systemic cruelty.

Misuse: Real, But Not Grounds for Repeal

The petitioner’s main contention was the alleged widespread misuse of the provision. It cited anecdotal evidence of false cases, harassment of the husband's family, and weaponisation of the law during marital discord. However, the Court clarified that “the possibility of misuse, by itself, does not render a provision unconstitutional.”

Citing Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India (2005), the Court reiterated that misuse must be tackled by judicial safeguards and guidelines, not by dismantling protective legislation.

Why Section 84 BNS Matters

Dowry-related violence and mental cruelty remain harsh realities in India, cutting across class, caste, and geography. According to data released by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), a total of 10,366 cases were registered under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 in the year 2020 alone. These figures represent not just legal entries but real lives—women subjected to harassment, emotional torture, and in many cases, fatal abuse.

This backdrop reinforces the critical need for strong legal provisions like Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which specifically addresses cruelty inflicted by a husband or his relatives. It acts as a statutory shield for those trapped in cycles of abuse, often with no financial independence or familial support to escape.

The judgment also took cognizance of ground realities, where dowry videos are proudly posted on social media, normalised as cultural practices, showcasing the depth of the malaise.

Article 14 and the Equality Argument

The petitioner claimed that the law violates Article 14 of the Constitution by creating an unequal framework, criminalising only husbands and their relatives. However, the Court rightly noted that Article 15(3) permits “positive discrimination” in favour of women.

Protection, not privilege, is the rationale. The provision was enacted with full awareness of societal vulnerabilities. In this context, equality does not demand sameness, but justice.

The Separation of Powers: A Guiding Principle

A key takeaway from the verdict is the restraint exercised by the judiciary. The Court clearly stated that policy decisions of the legislature are not to be lightly interfered with. Unless gross arbitrariness is shown, courts must respect Parliament’s domain.

This judgment reaffirms the boundary line: reform of penal laws lies in the legislature’s hands, not in judicial activism driven by public sentiment or anecdotal grievances.

The Real Question: Are Safeguards Sufficient?

While upholding the provision, the Court did not ignore the concerns of misuse. In previous rulings, including Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P. (2017), the Supreme Court had already directed for family welfare committees, preliminary inquiries, and arrest only with higher-level approval.

These procedural safeguards aim to balance the scales—ensuring protection without indiscriminate prosecution. The real challenge lies in effective implementation of these safeguards, not in dismantling the provision altogether.

Gender-Neutrality in Domestic Violence Laws: A Larger Debate

One of the demands of the petitioner was to make domestic violence laws gender-neutral. While men can certainly be victims of domestic abuse, especially in non-heteronormative or reverse abuse scenarios, the Court carefully sidestepped this broader policy issue.

This is significant. It shows judicial humility in refusing to legislate from the bench, while leaving the door open for future legislative evolution—perhaps through comprehensive reforms acknowledging abuse beyond gender binaries.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Janshruti v. Union of India is not a celebration of Section 84 BNS, but a recognition of its necessity. The law is not perfect, but its intent is noble. It protects those who are otherwise crushed by silence, stigma, and societal structures.

Yes, there are wrinkles—false cases, procedural abuse, wrongful arrests—but these demand reform, not repeal. The Court’s insistence on case-to-case adjudication is a reminder that the solution lies in judicial discretion, social awareness, and procedural clarity.

In the final analysis, Section 84 BNS does strike a delicate balance between protection and fairness. It tilts slightly in favour of protection—and rightly so—for without protection, fairness is but an illusion for the vulnerable.

Critics often overlook, focusing only on the 5–10% cases where exaggeration or misuse may occur. But laws are made to protect the majority, not dictated by fringe misuse.

Important Link