oppn parties Section 498A: Shield or Weapon?

News Snippets

  • MS Dhoni decides to take a two-month break, will skip West Indies tour but will not retire
  • Phagu Chauhan is the new Governor of Bihar while Ramesh Bais has been appointed as that of Tripura
  • Governors: Anandiben Patel shifted from Madhya Pradesh to Uttar Pradesh and Lalji Tandon from Bihar to Madhya Pradesh
  • Naga talks interlocutor RN Ravi appointed as Governor of Nagaland
  • Noted lawyer Jagdeep Dhankhar appointed as new Governor of West Bengal
  • 84 NDRF teams have been despatched to 23 states to tackle the flood situation
  • Three persons lynched in Bihar after being accused of cattle theft
  • Delhi police seize a consignment of 1500 kgs of heroin and busts a cartel of Afghanistan-Pakistan narcotics dealers with links to the Taliban
  • Supreme Court gives 9 more months to complete the Babri Masjid demolition case trial
  • Priyanka Gandhi not allowed to meet the families of the dead in the Sonabhadra firing, arrested
  • ICC inducts Sachin Tendulkar in [email protected]@@s Hall of Fame
  • Stock markets bleed for the second day. Sensex crashes 560 points
  • S Jaishankar, Minister of External Affairs, says Pakistan should release and repatriate Kulbhushan Jadhav immediately
  • Karnataka Governor Vajubhai Vala asks the Speaker to hold the trust vote latest by 1.30 pm today
  • The Government sends a list of 24 questions to mobile app company that runs video app TikTok seeking answers for anti-national and obscene content carried on the platform
Former Delhi CM and senior Congress leader Sheila Dikshit dies following a cardiac arrest. She was 81
oppn parties
Section 498A: Shield or Weapon?

By Sunil Garodia

About the Author

Sunil Garodia Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator. Writes for a number of publications.
How much truth is there in cases filed under section 498A of the IPC relating to cruelty to wives? This section was inserted in the code to prevent harassment of and suicides by married women mentally or physically tortured by their husbands and his family members. It provided for non-bailable arrests as soon as the complaint was made (although Supreme Court guidelines in 2014 had restricted this). This provision meant that the section being misused to some extent. The Supreme Court also observed in 2014 that although the section was designed as a shield it was being used as a weapon.

But the recent judgment of the Supreme Court saying immediate arrests should not be made in such cases and the matter must first be verified by a Family Welfare Committee (FWC) has drawn the ire of activists who feel that by painting all such cases with the same brush the Supreme Court has pushed back attempts to provide succor to women in private spaces. They argue that the Family Welfare Committee cannot be expected to shed patriarchal attitude and may not look at the woman’s grievances fairly. They also argue that why should family honour and attempts to reconcile assume greater importance than the sufferings of captive women.

While all these are valid points, they pale into insignificance once two things are examined in tandem. One, National Crime Records Bureau statistics show that arrests under this section have been increasing exponentially year after year. While this in itself might be due to increased awareness and also the fact that such crimes might be increasing, but when one examines the rate of conviction against the number of arrests, one finds that there is a steep fall each year. Why are women who complain not able to prove their cases? In fact, by delving deeper, one finds that most of these cases are “settled” and the complaint withdrawn. This cements the belief that a large number of these cases are being filed as pressure tactics by married women aggrieved by matrimonial disputes other than actual physical or mental torture. If that is indeed so, the very purpose of the section is being defeated through its misuse.

The Supreme Court had issued detailed guidelines in 2014 in the case Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar & Anr where it had ordered investigating officers not to rush into making arrests before properly verifying the facts of the case. The very first point in the guidelines provided that “all the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41, Cr.PC.” Obviously, the earlier guidelines have not yielded the desired results and the apex court has been forced to issue the current order providing for FMC to examine the facts before arrests can be made. While there may be flaws in the proposed set up, it is better to give it a try rather than allow the police to arrest people only on the basis of a complaint, more so when statistics show that a huge number of these complaints are later either “settled” or inexplicably withdrawn.