1). Supreme Court: Mere Harassment Not Enough for Abetment of Suicide, Must Leave No Other Choice

Case Background

The case revolves around the suspected relationship between Ziaul Rahman (since deceased), son of the first appellant, and Tanu (since deceased), cousin of the complainant. The first appellant had filed an FIR alleging that Tanu’s relatives had beaten his son, which later led to his son's death.

Following this incident, the appellants were accused of harassing and humiliating Tanu, blaming her for their son's death. As per the complainant, this harassment led to Tanu’s suicide. A case of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC was filed against the appellants.

The appellants then approached the High Court seeking to quash the proceedings. However, the High Court refused, stating that there was a direct link between the accused's actions and the deceased's suicide. The Court also noted that Tanu was hypersensitive, depressed, and felt humiliated. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellants moved the Supreme Court.

Issues in the Case

1. Whether the ingredients of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC were made out against the appellants.
2. Whether the alleged harassment by the appellants was of such nature that it left the victim with no alternative but to commit suicide.
3. Whether the charge sheet was based on proper investigation or merely relied on the complainant’s version.
4. Whether a reinvestigation into the case was necessary.

Court Observations

Bench Composition

The case was heard by a Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Sanjay Kumar, and K.V. Viswanathan.

Key Observations

• The Supreme Court noted that the charge sheet was entirely based on the complainant’s version, without any deeper investigation into other possible causes of suicide.
• The Court questioned whether Tanu took the extreme step due to pressure from other sources, including her own family, especially given the disapproval of her relationship with Ziaul Rahman.
• The investigating authorities failed to consider alternative angles that could have contributed to her suicide.
• There was no evidence of direct or indirect instigation by the appellants, as required under Section 107 IPC (abetment) to establish an offence under Section 306 IPC.

The Court relied on the legal principles established in past cases, particularly:

• Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat (2010) 8 SCC 628, which emphasized that for an offence under Section 306 IPC, there must be a specific act of instigation, abetment, or encouragement leading to suicide.
• Mahendra Awase vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, which reaffirmed that mere harassment is not enough unless it directly leads to suicide.

Court Rulings & Decisions

1. Quashing of Abetment of Suicide Charges
   • The Supreme Court held that the allegations did not fulfill the legal requirements of abetment of suicideunder Section 306 IPC.
   • The verbal statements of the accused could not be considered as an instigation to commit suicide.
   • Since the evidence was insufficient, the Court quashed the charges against the appellants.
2. Order for Reinvestigation
   • The Court observed that the investigation was one-sided and directed a fresh inquiry into Tanu’s unnatural death.
   • The Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, was ordered to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT), led by a Deputy Inspector General (DIG)-level officer.
   • The SIT was given two months to submit its findings to the Supreme Court in a sealed cover.

Legal Provisions 

1. Section 306 IPC – Abetment of Suicide
   • Requires proof of instigation, intentional aid, or abetment leading to suicide. (Section 108 of BNS)
2. Section 107 IPC – Definition of Abetment
   • Mere harassment or verbal abuse is not enough; a direct link between the accused's actions and the victim's suicide must be established. (Section 45 of BNS)

Significance of the Judgment

• Reiterates the strict legal standard for abetment of suicide: The Court reaffirmed that mere harassment, humiliation, or distress is not enough unless it directly leads to suicide.
• Prevents misuse of abetment of suicide charges: The judgment prevents people from falsely implicating others in Section 306 IPC cases without strong evidence.
• Upholds the importance of fair investigation: By ordering a reinvestigation, the Court ensures that all aspects of the case are properly examined, rather than relying solely on one-sided accusations.

The Supreme Court quashed the abetment of suicide charges against the appellants, ruling that the legal ingredients for abetment were not met. However, recognizing the lack of a proper investigation, the Court ordered a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to reinvestigate Tanu’s unnatural death and submit its report within two months.

This case serves as a precedent for ensuring fair investigations in abetment of suicide cases and prevents misuse of Section 306 IPC in situations where there is no direct evidence of instigation or abetment.

Case Name: AYYUB vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH., Diary No. - 21115/2024

2).Kerala High Court Explores Uniform Format for Incorporating Settlement Terms in ADR Cases

Case Background

The Kerala High Court considered a suo moto petition (a case taken up by the Court on its own) to establish a uniform practice for including settlement terms in judgments, decrees, and orders when cases are settled through mediation or other alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods.

The petition was initiated by the Registry due to difficulties faced by litigants living abroad who needed a single document containing both the judgment and settlement terms. The issue was whether all courts should uniformly include settlement terms in judicial orders.

Issues in the Case

1. Should all courts uniformly include settlement terms in judgments, decrees, and orders?
2. Does a judge have the discretion to decide whether to include settlement terms based on case nature and party consent?
3. Are there legal impediments to including settlement terms in judicial orders?
4. What are the advantages and disadvantages of incorporating settlement terms in court judgments?

Court Observations

Bench Composition

The case was heard by a Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu.

Key Observations

• No General Rule for All Cases: The Court stated that not all cases require settlement terms to be included in judicial orders.
• Judge’s Discretion and Party Consent: Each judge must decide on a case-to-case basis whether to include settlement terms, considering the nature of the case and the consent of parties.
• No Legal Mandate for Inclusion: Since there is no statutory provision requiring settlement terms to be part of judgments, a uniform rule cannot be imposed.
• Advantages of Inclusion:
  • Helps reduce future disputes.
  • Provides clarity for litigants, especially those living abroad.
  • Allows litigants to rely on a single document instead of multiple papers.
• Disadvantages of Inclusion:
  • Privacy concerns, especially in family law cases where confidentiality is important.
  • If settlement terms are included, any modification would require a fresh judicial order, making the process more complicated.

The Court also referred to Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which allows courts to refer cases for alternative dispute resolution (ADR) if both parties agree to settle.

Court Rulings & Decisions

1. No Uniform Order:
   • The Court refused to impose a blanket rule requiring all courts to include settlement terms in judgments, as there is no legal mandate for it.
   • Instead, judges should decide based on case nature and party consent.
2. If Parties Oppose Inclusion:
   • Judges should not include settlement terms if one or both parties oppose it.
3. If Parties Consent to Inclusion:
   • Judges may include settlement terms in the judgment if there is no legal impediment.
   • It is preferable to attach a scanned copy with signatures to avoid disputes.
4. Suo Moto Petition Closed:
   • Since the Court clarified the legal position, it closed the suo moto petition without issuing any mandatory rule.

Legal Provisions 

• Section 89 CPC – Courts can encourage out-of-court settlements and refer disputes for mediation, arbitration, or conciliation.

Significance of the Judgment

• Judicial Discretion Upheld: Judges have flexibility to decide whether to include settlement terms rather than following a rigid rule.
• Balances Transparency & Privacy: The ruling ensures that while some cases may benefit from public record settlement terms, others (like family disputes) can maintain confidentiality.
• Helps Litigants Living Abroad: Including settlement terms in one document helps litigants avoid confusion and delays.
• Prevents Unnecessary Litigation: By clarifying when settlement terms should be included, the Court reduces chances of future legal conflicts.

The Kerala High Court ruled that there is no mandatory rule requiring settlement terms to be included in judicial orders. Judges have the discretion to decide on a case-to-case basis, depending on party consent and legal considerations.

While including settlement terms can be helpful (especially for those living abroad), privacy concerns and legal complications must also be considered. If both parties agree, judges may incorporate the terms, preferably as a scanned, signed copy. However, if either party opposes, the terms should not be included.

With this clarification, the Court closed the suo moto petition without issuing any compulsory rule.

Case Name: Suo Motu Jpp Initiated By The High Court Of Kerala

Case No: JPP NO. 1 OF 2025

3). Madras High Court: Family Courts Should Be Empathetic, Allow Online Mediation Instead of Personal Appearance

Case Background

The Madras High Court addressed issues related to procedural delays in Family Courts, particularly the insistence on the personal appearance of litigants at every hearing. The Court observed that such a practice led to inefficiency and unnecessary hardship for the parties involved.

The case arose from petitions challenging Family Court decisions, including:

1. Refusal to number a power of attorney (PoA) for representation in a family case.
2. Refusal to allow parties living abroad to attend proceedings via video conferencing.

The petitioners argued that such restrictions created unnecessary difficulties for litigants, especially those residing outside India, and delayed the resolution of family disputes.

Issues in the Case

1. Should Family Courts insist on the personal appearance of parties at every hearing?
2. Can a power of attorney holder represent a litigant in Family Court proceedings?
3. Can litigants residing abroad participate in proceedings through video conferencing?
4. Should Family Courts allow online mediation, given the absence of specific legal provisions?

Court Observations

Bench Composition

The case was heard by Justice V. Lakshminarayanan of the Madras High Court.

Key Observations

• Unreasonable Personal Appearance Requirements:
  • It is inhuman to expect litigants to appear for every hearing in a family dispute.
  • Family Courts must function in a humane and reasonable manner and consider the emotional, physical, and financial distress of litigants.
  • Mandatory personal appearance causes delays and inefficiency in court proceedings.
• Representation Through Power of Attorney (PoA):
  • Section 13 of the Family Courts Act and Rule 41 of the Family Court Rules do not prevent parties from being represented by a lawyer or agent.
  • The restriction on lawyers in Family Courts was meant to prevent cases from becoming adversarial, not to deny fair representation.
  • If denying legal representation affects a party’s ability to present or defend their case effectively, courts must allow representation through a lawyer or power of attorney.
• Participation via Video Conferencing:
  • The Court referred to the case of G. Shrilakshmi vs. Anirudh Ramkumar, which permitted power agents to represent litigants in mutual divorce cases.
  • The same principle should apply to all Family Court cases, ensuring efficient case disposal.
  • Parties living abroad must be allowed to participate in Family Court proceedings through video conferencing to prevent unnecessary travel and delays.
• Guidelines for Power of Attorney Representation:
  • To ensure authenticity, the PoA should be:
    • Registered with a Sub-Registrar in India.
    • Executed before a Notary Public if created in India.
    • If executed abroad, it must be:
      • Notarized in that country and then adjudicated in India.
      • Attested by a competent authority or notary public of that country.
  • PoA holders can represent the litigant in all proceedings except during:
    • Mediation.
    • Recording of evidence.
    • Any stage where the court requires the personal presence of the party.
• Online Mediation in Family Court Cases:
  • Mediation is crucial in family disputes, but physical appearance may not always be possible.
  • Tamil Nadu Mediation Rules, 2010 allow mediation at any agreed location, which can include online platforms.
  • Though Section 30 of the Mediation Act (which permits online mediation) is not yet in force, online mediation is not prohibited by law.
  • The Madras High Court has consistently encouraged online mediation, and trained mediators in Tamil Nadu are equipped to conduct it.
  • Thus, litigants should be allowed to attend mediation through video conferencing, provided they give prior notice to the mediator.

Court Rulings & Decisions

1. Family Courts should not insist on the personal appearance of litigants for every hearing.
2. Power of Attorney (PoA) holders should be allowed to represent litigants in all proceedings except mediation and evidence recording.
3. Litigants residing abroad should be permitted to participate in proceedings via video conferencing.
4. Online mediation should be allowed, as there is no law prohibiting it. Until specific rules are framed, Family Courts should permit online mediation upon prior notice to the mediator.
5. Family Courts should adopt a flexible and empathetic approach to reduce procedural delays and improve efficiency.

Legal Provisions 

• Section 13 of the Family Courts Act – Restricts lawyers from appearing in Family Courts but does not prohibit legal representation if necessary.
• Rule 41 of the Family Court Rules – Allows discretion in permitting legal representation.
• Tamil Nadu Mediation Rules, 2010 – Allows mediation at any location agreed upon by the parties, which can include online platforms.
• Section 30 of the Mediation Act – Allows online mediation (not yet in force).

Significance of the Judgment

• Improves Efficiency of Family Courts: Prevents unnecessary delays caused by rigid procedures.
• Protects Litigants from Unnecessary Hardship: Recognizes the financial, emotional, and physical difficultiesfaced by litigants.
• Supports Access to Justice: Allows representation via power of attorney and video conferencing, making it easier for litigants residing abroad to participate.
• Encourages Modernization: Promotes online mediation and digital solutions for dispute resolution.
• Strikes a Balance: Ensures procedural fairness while maintaining the non-adversarial nature of Family Court proceedings.

The Madras High Court ruled that Family Courts should be flexible in procedural matters. Litigants should not be forced to appear at every hearing unless necessary. Courts must allow representation through Power of Attorney, and parties living abroad should be permitted to participate via video conferencing. The Court also encouraged online mediation, ensuring that family disputes can be resolved efficiently without unnecessary hardship to litigants.

This decision reinforces the need for a humane approach in Family Courts and ensures that justice is accessible, efficient, and fair.

Case Name: ABC v. XYZ

Case No: C.R.P.(PD).Nos.4073 & 4227 of 2024

4). J&K High Court: Prosecution Not a Barrier to Preventive Detention, Can Be Ordered Anytime 

Case Background

The petitioner was placed under preventive detention under the Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PIT NDPS Act). The detention order was passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, based on the petitioner’s alleged involvement in drug trafficking.

The detention order mentioned that:

• The petitioner was a history-sheeter with two FIRs registered against him under the NDPS Act, 1985.
• He was selling drugs to youth, which had serious consequences for the younger generation.

The petitioner challenged the detention order before the Jammu & Kashmir High Court, arguing that he was already being prosecuted under regular criminal law and that preventive detention was unnecessary.

Issues in the Case

1. Can a person be placed under preventive detention even if criminal prosecution is ongoing?
2. Is preventive detention justified for suspected drug traffickers under the PIT NDPS Act?
3. Does preventive detention require the same level of legal proof as criminal prosecution?

Court Observations

Bench Composition

The case was heard by Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court.

Key Observations

• Preventive detention and prosecution are separate legal actions.
  • The Court clarified that preventive detention can be imposed before, during, or after criminal prosecution, and even after acquittal.
  • The existence of a criminal case does not bar a detention order, just as a detention order does not prevent prosecution.
  • Preventive detention focuses on preventing future harm, while prosecution deals with punishing past offenses.
• Drug trafficking is a serious threat to society.
  • The Court highlighted that illicit drug trade severely impacts public health, safety, and national security.
  • Drug trafficking has dangerous consequences, especially for the youth.
  • Preventive detention is necessary to stop organized and clandestine drug activities before they cause further damage.
• Justification for preventive detention laws.
  • The Court emphasized that society’s need for law and order justifies preventive detention laws.
  • Personal liberty is important, but if a person’s actions threaten public welfare, preventive detention becomes necessary.
  • Authorities do not need full legal proof of a specific crime to detain a person preventively. Even a strong probability of future harm can justify detention.
• Public interest outweighs individual liberty in cases of drug trafficking.
  • The Court acknowledged the severe impact of narcotic drug trafficking on public health and safety.
  • The danger of drug-related crimes justifies the use of preventive detention laws to stop suspected traffickers before they cause more harm.

Court Rulings & Decisions

1. Preventive detention is legally valid even when criminal prosecution is ongoing.
2. A detention order under the PIT NDPS Act is justified when a person is suspected of engaging in drug trafficking.
3. Preventive detention does not require the same level of legal proof as criminal trials. Authorities can act on a strong probability of future criminal activities.
4. The High Court refused to quash the detention order and dismissed the petition.

Legal Provisions 

• Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PIT NDPS Act) – Allows preventive detention for persons suspected of involvement in drug trafficking.
• Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) – Regulates the control and prosecution of drug-related crimes.
• Fundamental Right to Personal Liberty (Article 21, Constitution of India) – Courts can impose restrictions on personal liberty if necessary for public safety.

Significance of the Judgment

• Strengthens preventive detention laws in drug cases. The judgment reinforces that authorities can detain drug traffickers even without full legal proof.
• Clarifies the relationship between prosecution and preventive detention. The ruling confirms that both processes can coexist and serve different purposes.
• Highlights the seriousness of drug trafficking. The Court’s strong stance underscores that public safety takes priority over individual liberty when drug-related crimes are involved.
• Sets a precedent for future preventive detention cases. The ruling will help authorities justify detention orders in narcotics and other serious offences.

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court upheld the preventive detention of the petitioner under the PIT NDPS Act, rejecting the argument that an ongoing criminal case made detention unnecessary. The Court emphasized that preventive detention is a separate legal process from prosecution and is justified in cases where a person’s actions pose a serious risk to public safety.

This judgment strengthens the fight against drug trafficking and reinforces the preventive powers of the state in dealing with serious threats to society.

Case Name: Shahid Ahmad Bhat vs Union Territory of J&K and others, 2025

5). Delhi High Court Upholds Validity of Section 132 of Companies Act & NFRA Rules

A group of Chartered Accountants and auditing firms challenged the constitutional validity of Section 132 of the Companies Act, 2013, and Rules 3, 8, 10, and 11 of the National Financial Reporting Authority (NFRA) Rules, 2018.

Section 132 of the Companies Act establishes the National Financial Reporting Authority (NFRA), which is responsible for setting financial reporting and auditing standards in India. It also gives NFRA the power to investigate and penalize misconduct by chartered accountants and audit firms.

The petitioners argued that:

1. Section 132 was unconstitutional because it imposed vicarious liability on audit firms for the actions of their individual partners.
2. NFRA’s powers were retrospective, meaning they could punish auditors for audits conducted before the law came into force (before October 1, 2018).
3. The provision violated Article 20(1) of the Constitution, which prohibits retrospective punishment.

The petitioners requested the Court to:

• Declare Section 132 and NFRA Rules unconstitutional.
• At least limit their application to audits conducted after October 1, 2018.

Issues in the Case

1. Is Section 132 of the Companies Act unconstitutional?
2. Does Section 132 impose unfair liability on audit firms for the actions of individual auditors?
3. Is NFRA’s power to investigate past audits a violation of Article 20(1) of the Constitution?

Court Observations

Bench Composition

The case was heard by a Division Bench comprising Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma of the Delhi High Court.

Key Observations

• Section 132 is constitutional and necessary for enforcing professional accountability.
  • The Court held that NFRA is a regulatory body ensuring high auditing standards and preventing misconduct.
  • It emphasized that audit firms have collective responsibility for financial reporting, so vicarious liability is justified.
• Section 132 does not impose retrospective punishment.
  • The Court clarified that NFRA’s regulations do not create new offenses but only enhance regulatory oversight.
  • No auditor has a “vested right” to escape scrutiny for misconduct, even if it occurred before the law was introduced.
• NFRA’s disciplinary actions follow civil law principles, not criminal law.
  • The “proof beyond reasonable doubt” standard applies only to criminal cases.
  • NFRA’s disciplinary proceedings are based on the “preponderance of probabilities” (meaning, if it is more likely than not that misconduct occurred, action can be taken).
• NFRA ensures global auditing standards.
  • The Court said NFRA strengthens India’s financial system by ensuring transparency and accountability.
  • Section 132 aligns with international best practices, making India’s auditing system more reliable.
• NFRA’s power to investigate is justified.
  • The Court ruled that NFRA’s investigations are not based on complaints alone but on audit records and reviews.
  • NFRA can initiate investigations suo motu (on its own) or based on a reference from the Union Government.

Court Rulings & Decisions

1. Section 132 and the NFRA Rules are valid and constitutional.
2. The provision does not violate Article 20(1) of the Constitution because it does not impose retrospective punishment.
3. Audit firms can be held liable for professional misconduct of their partners.
4. NFRA’s disciplinary powers are reasonable and do not require criminal law standards of proof.
5. The petitioners’ plea was dismissed.

Legal Provisions 

• Section 132 of the Companies Act, 2013 – Establishes NFRA and gives it powers to regulate auditing standards and punish misconduct.
• NFRA Rules, 2018 – Detail the procedures and scope of NFRA’s regulatory powers.
• Article 20(1) of the Constitution – Prohibits retrospective criminal punishment but does not apply to regulatory oversight.

Significance of the Judgment

• Strengthens financial accountability. The ruling ensures that auditors and firms maintain high ethical standards.
• Clarifies regulatory oversight. The judgment establishes that NFRA’s powers are not retrospective in a punitive sense but are necessary for transparency and quality control.
• Enhances India's global reputation. By upholding NFRA’s role, the Court has ensured India’s auditing standards align with international best practices.
• Limits audit firms’ attempts to escape liability. The ruling confirms that audit firms cannot avoid responsibilityfor misconduct, even if the audit occurred before NFRA was formed.

The Delhi High Court upheld the validity of Section 132 of the Companies Act and the NFRA Rules, rejecting the argument that they were unconstitutional. It ruled that audit firms and professionals must be held accountable for their work and that NFRA is essential for maintaining financial integrity.

The judgment reinforces the role of NFRA in preventing financial fraud and ensuring strong regulatory oversight in India’s corporate sector.

Case Name: DELOITTE HASKINS & SELLS LLP v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. and other connected matters

Add-On

"498A IPC Not Misused by All, But Misunderstood by Society" – Justice Neela Gokhale

Case Background

Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale of the Bombay High Court recently addressed the issue of the use and misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with cruelty against women by their husbands and in-laws. She was speaking at an interactive lecture organized by the Interactive Lawyers Association for Women (ILAW) on the topic “Use and Misuse of Section 498A”.

She emphasized that Section 498A IPC is not misused but misunderstood, and while a few women may misuse it, the law should not be generalized as a tool of false accusations.

Issue of the Case

The primary issue discussed was:

1. Whether Section 498A IPC is widely misused or simply misunderstood.
2. The societal mindset that prevents women from reporting domestic violence and dowry harassment.
3. The issue of over-implication, where multiple family members, including those living separately, are sometimes falsely accused.
4. The importance of lawyers guiding women with practical legal advice rather than engaging them in prolonged litigation.

Court Observations

1. Section 498A Is Misunderstood, Not Misused

Justice Gokhale stated that while some women may misuse Section 498A IPC, this does not mean the entire law is flawed. She said that the patriarchal mindset in society often discourages women from reporting domestic abuse, making the law crucial for their protection.

She cited a 2003 government report stating that more than 30% of married women face physical, sexual, and emotional abuse by their husbands and in-laws. However, many cases remain unreported due to societal pressures.

2. "Doli Me Baith Ke Aayi Hai, Arthi Pe Hi Jayegi" - A Major Hurdle for Women

Justice Gokhale highlighted a regressive societal belief that once a woman gets married, she must endure all hardships in her marital home, even if it leads to her death. This mindset prevents women from seeking justice and reporting domestic violence.

3. Over-Implication of Accused in Section 498A Cases

The judge acknowledged that sometimes, wives file 498A cases against their husbands and in-laws to get maintenance. In such cases, they may falsely implicate family members, such as the husband's sister, who may not even live in the same house. However, she explained that this is often done out of necessity, not malice.

4. Genuine Victims Suffer Due to False Cases

Justice Gokhale noted that in many cases, the ingredients of Section 498A IPC are not met, meaning the allegations do not constitute legal cruelty. However, because of such false or exaggerated complaints, genuine victims may not receive the justice they deserve.

She explained that when judges hear multiple false cases, they may become skeptical, making it harder for real victimsto prove their suffering.

5. Lawyers Should Provide Practical Legal Advice

Justice Gokhale urged lawyers to guide women on the difference between a routine marital discord and actual crueltyunder Section 498A IPC.

• Mild scolding or occasional fights do not amount to cruelty.
• However, constant taunts, humiliation, and insults for trivial reasons do constitute cruelty.

She advised lawyers to provide practical legal solutions to aggrieved women instead of involving them in long, unnecessary legal battles.

Court Rulings and Decisions

This was not a judicial ruling but rather an insightful discussion by Justice Gokhale, highlighting:

• Section 498A IPC remains crucial for protecting women from domestic violence.
• The law should not be diluted based on a few cases of misuse.
• Courts must differentiate between genuine and false cases to ensure justice.
• Lawyers should guide women properly, ensuring they do not file false complaints but also do not hesitate to report genuine abuse.

Legal Provisions 

1. Section 498A IPC – Protects women from cruelty by husbands and in-laws, punishable with up to three years of imprisonment and a fine. (Section 85 of BNS)
2. Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Criminalizes giving and taking of dowry.
3. Article 15(3) of the Indian Constitution – Allows special laws for the protection of women and children.

Significance of the Discussion

1. Clears Misconceptions – The discussion clarifies that 498A IPC is not widely misused, but misunderstood due to societal biases.
2. Empowers Women – Encourages women to report genuine cases of domestic abuse without fear of social stigma.
3. Prevents False Accusations – Warns against over-implication of family members in cases where evidence is weak.
4. Guides Lawyers – Encourages legal professionals to offer practical advice to victims instead of entangling them in prolonged litigation.

Justice Neela Gokhale's speech sheds light on the realities of Section 498A IPC. While the law is sometimes misused, it is primarily misunderstood due to deep-rooted patriarchy. She emphasized that instead of diluting the law, the judiciary and legal community must ensure its proper implementation.

The session ended with Justice Gokhale felicitating three newly designated women senior advocates of the Bombay High Court—Seema Sarnaik, Neeta Karnik, and Manjiri Shah.

By addressing these concerns, the judiciary aims to strike a balance between protecting genuine victims and preventing false cases, ensuring justice for all.