IPC

Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006)

(2006) 8 SCC 1

In 2006, the Supreme Court issued seven binding directives to all states compelling structural police reforms, including State Security Commissions, fixed tenures for the DGP and field officers, separation of investigation from law-and-order functions, Police Establishment Boards, Police Complaints Authorities, and a National Security Commission.

Case Summary: Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar v. Union of India

Discover the 2018 Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar v. Union of India case, Supreme Court's Section 498A IPC guidelines, and their effects on dowry laws.

Case Summary: Rajesh Sharma v State of U.P. (2017)

(2018) 10 SCC 472

A two-judge bench laid down safeguards — including Family Welfare Committees — to prevent misuse of Section 498A IPC in dowry harassment cases. A year later, a three-judge bench in Social Action Forum (2018) scrapped the FWC mechanism as impermissible. From 1 July 2024 the provision is BNS §85/§86; the Arnesh Kumar arrest-checklist safeguards remain.

Case Summary: Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar 2014

(2014) 8 SCC 273

Arnesh Kumar, apprehending arrest in a §498A IPC / Dowry Prohibition Act case brought by his wife, reached the Supreme Court after being refused anticipatory bail. The Court (Chandramauli Kr. Prasad and Pinaki Chandra Ghose JJ., 2 July 2014) used the case to curb reflexive arrests: for §498A and any offence punishable up to 7 years, police must not arrest automatically but must justify arrest against the §41(1)(b) CrPC checklist, issue a §41A notice of appearance where arrest is unnecessary, and magistrates must not authorise detention mechanically. Citing NCRB data (about 1.97 lakh arrested under §498A in 2012, ~15% conviction), the Court treated arrest as an exception. The guidelines continue under BNS §85/§86 and BNSS §35.

Case Summary: Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India 2005

AIR 2005 SC 3100; W.P. (C) No. 141 of 2005

Two-judge bench (Pasayat & Sema JJ.) upheld §498A IPC as constitutional on 19 July 2005; mere possibility of misuse does not invalidate a law. Issued the "watchdog, not bloodhound" standard for investigating agencies. §498A is now BNS §85.

Case Summary: V. Revathi v. Union of India 1988

AIR 1988 SC 835

The Supreme Court in 1988 upheld Section 497 IPC (adultery) and Section 198(2) CrPC, rejecting the petitioner's argument that denying wives the right to prosecute their adulterous husbands was discriminatory under Arts 14, 15 and 21. The provision was finally struck down in Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018).

Sowmithri Vishnu v. Union of India (1985): Case Summary

1985 Supp SCC 137

In Sowmithri Vishnu v. Union of India (1985), the Supreme Court (Chandrachud CJ) upheld Section 497 IPC, rejecting the challenge that the adultery offence was gender-discriminatory. Section 497 was finally struck down only in 2018 in Joseph Shine v. Union of India.

Case Study: Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India 2018

AIR 2018 SC 4321; 2018 (10) SCALE 386; W.P. (Cr.) No. 76 of 2016

Five-judge constitution bench (CJI Misra, Khanwilkar, Nariman, Chandrachud, Malhotra JJ) unanimously held on 6 September 2018 that §377 IPC, to the extent it criminalised consensual same-sex acts between adults, was unconstitutional — violating Arts 14, 15, 19 and 21. Overruled Suresh Kumar Koushal (2013). Four separate but converging opinions. §377 was omitted entirely from BNS 2023 (in force 1 Jul 2024). Same-sex marriage: denied by a five-judge bench in Supriyo v. Union of India (2023) — Parliament must legislate.

Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1963 SC 1094)

AIR 1963 SC 1094

The Supreme Court held that a government servant who temporarily took property without the owner's consent, causing wrongful loss even briefly, was guilty of theft under IPC §378/379. Temporary taking suffices — permanent deprivation is not required.

Theft vs. Extortion: Key Differences, Punishment & Case Law

Theft and extortion both end with you losing property to someone dishonest — but theft is taking it without your consent, while extortion is forcing you to hand it over through fear. Here is how Indian law (now the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) defines each, the punishments, and the leading cases.

Section 498A IPC (Now Section 85 BNS): Cruelty Explained

Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code criminalised cruelty against a married woman by her husband or his relatives. From 1 July 2024 it is re-enacted, almost word for word, as Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, with the definition of "cruelty" in Section 86. This guide covers the offence, the cruelty test, dowry-harassment links and the leading Supreme Court rulings on misuse.

Chapter 1 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023: Explained

A clear guide to Chapter 1 (Sections 1–3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: the new penal code's short title and commencement, its territorial and extra-territorial application, and the definitions and general explanations that underpin the rest of the Act.

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023: Comprehensive Study Guide

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 replaced the Indian Penal Code on 1 July 2024 with 358 sections. Key changes include removal of sedition, new organised crime and terrorism provisions, explicit mob-lynching offence, and community service as a punishment — but the marital rape exception is retained.