The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) petition that called for legal reforms to guard against the misuse of existing dowry and domestic violence laws [Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India and ors]..The Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and SC Sharma opined that the matter lay in the domain of the legislature and not courts. Notably, the Court also criticised the petitioner Vishal Tiwari for his attempt garner publicity through PILs.This was after Tiwari sought to withdraw the plea to make representations before appropriate authorities."Let me make representations ...," Tiwari requested."Yes, so that then you can come (back to Supreme Court) in contempt (with a plea alleging that the government has flouted court directions and is in contempt of court) and your name (can) keep coming in newspapers," Justice Sharma replied.The Court said lawyers must avoid being parties in person in PIL matters."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 at all?" Justice Nagarathna remarked, before the plea was eventually dismissed as withdrawn. "Judiciary is also burdened with these cases," Tiwari said. "When we (judges) take oath, we decide cases as per law. No burden upon us. Don't say all that," Justice Sharma replied. .The PIL was filed in light of the suicide of Bengaluru techie Atul Subhash. Subhash, a 34-year-old software engineer, had died by suicide in Bengaluru. He had left behind an elaborate suicide note and had also made a video blaming his wife Nikita Singhania and her family of harassing him and filing false cases against him, driving him to take his life..The petition by Tiwari called for the appointment of an expert committee to review and reform the existing dowry and domestic violence laws, in order to curb their misuse. However, the Bench today opined that it is up to the legislature and society to tackle such issues. "There is supremacy of the Parliament and it is their exclusive domain," Justice Sharma pointed out, when the matter was taken up today.Advocate Vishal Tiwari then referred to a Supreme Court judgment delivered last year, which too had raised related issues. However, the Court was not inclined to entertain the PIL on merits."Withdraw or dismissal?" Justice Nagarathna asked.Advocate Tiwari urged the Court to grant him liberty to make representations on this issue to the appropriate government authorities at least. The Bench, however, did not accede to this request."Society must change. Parliamentary laws are there," Justice Nagarathna added. The Court eventually allowed Tiwari to withdraw his plea. "Leave sought to withdraw matter. Writ is dismissed as withdrawn," it ordered. .[Read Live Coverage]
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) petition that called for legal reforms to guard against the misuse of existing dowry and domestic violence laws [Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India and ors]..The Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and SC Sharma opined that the matter lay in the domain of the legislature and not courts. Notably, the Court also criticised the petitioner Vishal Tiwari for his attempt garner publicity through PILs.This was after Tiwari sought to withdraw the plea to make representations before appropriate authorities."Let me make representations ...," Tiwari requested."Yes, so that then you can come (back to Supreme Court) in contempt (with a plea alleging that the government has flouted court directions and is in contempt of court) and your name (can) keep coming in newspapers," Justice Sharma replied.The Court said lawyers must avoid being parties in person in PIL matters."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 at all?" Justice Nagarathna remarked, before the plea was eventually dismissed as withdrawn. "Judiciary is also burdened with these cases," Tiwari said. "When we (judges) take oath, we decide cases as per law. No burden upon us. Don't say all that," Justice Sharma replied. .The PIL was filed in light of the suicide of Bengaluru techie Atul Subhash. Subhash, a 34-year-old software engineer, had died by suicide in Bengaluru. He had left behind an elaborate suicide note and had also made a video blaming his wife Nikita Singhania and her family of harassing him and filing false cases against him, driving him to take his life..The petition by Tiwari called for the appointment of an expert committee to review and reform the existing dowry and domestic violence laws, in order to curb their misuse. However, the Bench today opined that it is up to the legislature and society to tackle such issues. "There is supremacy of the Parliament and it is their exclusive domain," Justice Sharma pointed out, when the matter was taken up today.Advocate Vishal Tiwari then referred to a Supreme Court judgment delivered last year, which too had raised related issues. However, the Court was not inclined to entertain the PIL on merits."Withdraw or dismissal?" Justice Nagarathna asked.Advocate Tiwari urged the Court to grant him liberty to make representations on this issue to the appropriate government authorities at least. The Bench, however, did not accede to this request."Society must change. Parliamentary laws are there," Justice Nagarathna added. The Court eventually allowed Tiwari to withdraw his plea. "Leave sought to withdraw matter. Writ is dismissed as withdrawn," it ordered. .[Read Live Coverage]
