Section 498-A and Judicial Dilution: A Critique of the Supreme Court's Stance
UPSC Relevance
Prelims: Indian Polity & Governance (Judiciary, Fundamental Rights), Social Justice (Laws related to women's safety - Section 498-A, Dowry Prohibition Act), Current Events (Important Supreme Court Judgments).
Mains:
GS Paper 1: Role of women and women's organization, Social empowerment.
GS Paper 2: Structure, organization and functioning of the Judiciary; Mechanisms, laws, institutions and Bodies constituted for the protection and betterment of these vulnerable sections (women).
GS Paper 4 (Ethics): Can be used in case studies related to law and conscience, and empathy towards weaker sections.
Key Highlights from the News
Main Event: The Supreme Court, in the case of Shivangi Bansal v. Sahib Bansal, upheld the Allahabad High Court's order staying arrests for two months in cases under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) (law to prevent cruelty against women).
Controversial Directives:
Accused persons should not be arrested or subjected to other coercive measures for two months, until a 'cool-off' period from the date of filing the complaint.
Family welfare committees should be formed at the district level to consider these cases.
What is Section 498-A?
This law punishes cruelty committed by a husband or his relatives against a woman. This includes dowry harassment.
In the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), this is Section 85.
Main Criticism of the Article:
This verdict provides a blanket protection to the accused.
It endangers the safety of the complaining woman.
It legalizes police inaction in domestic violence complaints.
The Argument of 'Misuse':
This verdict is based on the common argument that Section 498-A is widely misused. However, the article states that this argument is not supported by accurate statistics.
According to NFHS-5 data, domestic violence is significantly under-reported in India.
A low conviction rate is not proof of the law's misuse. It can also be due to investigative flaws and social pressure.
Existing Safeguard: In the Arnesh Kumar (2014) case, the Supreme Court had already issued strict guidelines to prevent unnecessary arrests.
COMMENTS