Supreme Court Dismisses PIL for Gender-Neutral Dowry, Maintenance Laws: “Tell Us Which Provisions Are Not Misused?”

The Supreme Court has dismissed a PIL seeking gender-neutral provisions in dowry harassment (Section 498A IPC) and maintenance laws, questioning the claim of biased misuse. The bench remarked, “We understand this would make a spicy news item, but tell us which provisions are not being misused?”

Supreme Court Quashes Gujarat FIR Against Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi, Cites ‘Free Speech Not Based on Insecurity’

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday (28th March) criticized the Gujarat Police for filing a First Information Report (FIR) against Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi over a poem he had posted on social media. The Court ruled in his favor, stating that freedom of speech and expression is more important than the restrictions that can be imposed on it under the law.

“Growing Tendency To Misuse Laws Protecting Women”: SC’s Big Remark On Dowry Cases, Amid Atul Subhash Suicide Shocker

Today, 11th December, the Supreme Court overturned a Telangana High Court ruling regarding a dowry harassment case against Atul Subhash and his family. It emphasized the misuse of legal provisions to target innocent individuals amidst marital disputes. The ruling followed Atul’s tragic suicide, highlighting the need for careful judicial handling of such sensitive accusations.

“Domestic Violence & Section 498A IPC are the Most Abused Provisions”: Supreme Court

Today(11th Sept),The Supreme Court of India, during a matrimonial dispute hearing, highlighted that Section 498A of the IPC and the Domestic Violence Act have become some of the most abused laws in the country. The observation was made by Justice BR Gavai and his Bench, focusing on the misuse of these legal provisions.

Calcutta HC: ‘Sweety’ and ‘Baby’ Usage Not Always Sexual; Misusing POSH Act Could Impose Additional Barriers

The Calcutta High Court addressed workplace interactions and misuse of the Prevention of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, citing the use of terms like ‘Sweety’ and ‘Baby’. The court found that while the terms were inappropriate, their use did not constitute sexual harassment, cautioning against misuse of the Act to avoid hindering women’s employment opportunities.