Cruelty law being misused in marriages: SC on Section 498-A
The Supreme Court has voiced concerns about the misuse of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Supreme Court has voiced concerns about the misuse of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)-- a provision intended to protect women from cruelty in marital homes, popularly called the anti-Dowry law -- stressing the need for judicial prudence in identifying cases of “over implication” and warning against accepting exaggerated allegations without careful scrutiny.
The top court, while overturning a conviction under the law that has been replaced by Section 86 in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), reinforced the need for a balanced approach in the application of the legal provision to ward off wrongful implications. BNS has come into force with effect from July 1.
A bench of justices CT Ravikumar and PV Sanjay Kumar referenced the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Preeti Gupta Vs State of Jharkhand, where it had previously warned about the growing tendency to misuse Section 498-A, stating: “Exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints and the tendency of over implication is also reflected in a large number of cases.”
Drawing upon the 2010 judgment, the bench, in its judgment on Monday (October 21), noted that in many instances, people who had minimal or no role in the alleged offences are dragged into criminal trials, causing unnecessary hardship and reputational damage.
“We are of the view that in view of such circumstances, the courts have to be careful to identify instances of over implication and to avert the suffering of ignominy and inexpiable consequences, by such persons,” held the judgment.
The judgment serves as a reminder that while the intent behind the penal law on cruelty is critical for safeguarding the rights of women in marital homes, its misuse can lead to injustice.
In the case at hand, the petitioner was convicted under Section 498-A, which criminalises cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a married woman. The conviction cost the petitioner his job, besides incarceration for a few months. However, upon closer examination, the Supreme Court found no specific evidence linking the appellant to the alleged acts of cruelty. The conviction appeared to have been based largely on the fact that he was related to the prime accused – the husband of the deceased woman -- rather than on any substantive proof of his involvement in the mistreatment of the woman. The bench remarked that, although the petitioner was married to the sister of the deceased’s husband, he had minimal interaction with the victim and was not implicated by any concrete evidence.
The judgment highlighted that accusations of cruelty should not automatically lead to convictions without substantial evidence, as this can cause “ignominy and inexpiable consequences” for those falsely accused. The top court called for judicial restraint, urging courts to avoid hasty convictions based on weak or generalised allegations.
The court’s observations align with several earlier rulings that have sought to curb the misuse of Section 498-A. In Arnesh Kumar Vs State of Bihar (2014), the Supreme Court took a firm stance on the wrongful arrest and imprisonment of individuals based on unsubstantiated complaints under this section. The court had held that arrest in such cases should not be automatic and must follow a thorough investigation to prevent the harassment of innocent individuals.
Further, in Rajesh Sharma & Ors Vs State of UP (2017), the court recommended the constitution of family welfare committees to scrutinise complaints before any action is taken by the police, signalling the judiciary’s efforts to prevent misuse of the law. The decision aimed to reduce the number of false cases being filed under the guise of dowry or cruelty.
Subsequently, in Satender Kumar Antil’s judgment in 2022, the Supreme Court issued a string of guidelines that require police officers to record in writing before arresting the accused in cases where the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term less than seven years and issue of a proper notice before a suspect is called for questioning; mandate automatic grant of bail in cases where the accused was not arrested during investigation; recommend adoption of a liberal view in cases pertaining to women and the infirm; and direct disposal of bail applications within two weeks and pre-arrest bail applications within six weeks. The court is currently monitoring the compliance with its directions against routine arrests by state police and central agencies. In these proceedings, the Supreme Court has also directed the Union government to inform it whether a new law to facilitate the grant of bail is in the works, as it pushes for objectivity and accountability in the criminal justice system to prevent needless arrests.
Deepika Narayan Bhardwaj, a men’s rights activist, lamented that many men are forced to spend most important years of their lives proving innocence for crimes they never commit due to false cases. “In this case too, the only crime of a man was to be relative of the husband. And he had to come all the way to Supreme Court to be able to prove his innocence. I really feel it’s high time that courts punish false accusers who are as dangerous to society as real perpetrators. Section 498A has destroyed so many lives and is a chief reason for generating mistrust in the institution of marriage,” Bhardwaj added.