Today, On 27th January, The Supreme Court dismissed a PIL challenging the misuse of anti-dowry and domestic violence laws, emphasizing that lawyers should avoid becoming litigants. “An advocate must always avoid being a litigant,” the Court remarked, directing Advocate Vishal Tiwari to withdraw the plea. The Court’s statement highlights the importance of maintaining professionalism and impartiality in the legal field. Tiwari ultimately chose to withdraw the petition following the Court’s observation.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court declined to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) petition advocating for legal reforms to prevent the misuse of existing dowry and domestic violence laws.
Justices BV Nagarathna and SC Sharma stated that such matters fall within the legislative domain rather than the courts.
The Court criticized petitioner Vishal Tiwari for seeking publicity through PILs. This came after Tiwari expressed his desire to withdraw the plea in order to make representations to the appropriate authorities.
Also Read: First Dowry Case in India: A Complete Guide to Dowry Laws and Their Impact
He requested,
“Let me make representations …,”
Justice Sharma responded,
“Yes, so that then you can come (back to Supreme Court) in contempt… and your name (can) keep coming in newspapers.”
The Court advised that lawyers should refrain from being parties in person in PIL cases, with Justice Nagarathna stating,
“You must avoid being a party in person. An advocate must always avoid being a litigant or a surety. We might pass strictures or impose costs. Why should you expose yourself to all this?”
The PIL was filed after the suicide of Bengaluru techie Atul Subhash, a 34-year-old software engineer who left behind a suicide note and video blaming his wife, Nikita Singhania, and her family for harassment and filing false cases against him.
Tiwari’s petition called for the formation of an expert committee to review and reform the relevant laws to mitigate their misuse. However, the Bench maintained that addressing these issues is the responsibility of the legislature and society.
Justice Sharma emphasized,
“There is supremacy of the Parliament, and it is their exclusive domain,”
Tiwari referenced a previous Supreme Court judgment related to these issues, but the Court was not inclined to consider the PIL on its merits.
Justice Nagarathna inquired,
“Withdraw or dismissal?”
Tiwari requested the Court allow him to make representations to government authorities, but the Bench did not grant this request.
She added,
“Society must change. Parliamentary laws are there,”
Also Read: Cruelty Against Women| SC: Legal Reforms in Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
The Court ultimately permitted Tiwari to withdraw his plea, concluding,
“Leave sought to withdraw matter. Writ is dismissed as withdrawn.”
The misuse of anti-dowry laws and domestic violence (DV) laws has been a topic of significant debate in India. Critics argue that these laws, intended to protect women from abuse and exploitation, are sometimes misused for personal gain or to settle disputes. Allegations of false accusations and the wrongful application of these laws have raised concerns about their impact on both men and women.
As a result, there have been calls for legal reforms to ensure that such laws are used appropriately while still protecting the rights of vulnerable individuals. Ensuring a balance between justice and fairness is key to addressing these concerns.
Case Title: Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India and ors
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
