| UPSC Relevance Prelims Pointers:Section 498-A IPC → Section 85, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,Year introduced: 1983 via Criminal Law Amendment Act,Key judgment: Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar (2014). Mains Relevance: GS 1: Women-related issues, domestic violence. GS 2: Judicial overreach, separation of powers. GS 3: Internal security aspects of women’s vulnerability. |
Why in News
In July 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered its judgment in Shivangi Bansal vs Sahib Bansal, effectively endorsing an Allahabad High Court order that suspends arrest or coercive action under the anti-cruelty law — Section 498-A of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code (IPC) — for a fixed period after a complaint is filed. This ruling has sparked strong debate as it potentially weakens a key legal safeguard for women facing domestic violence.
Background
Section 498-A IPC (now Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) was inserted in 1983 to address cruelty against married women by their husbands or in-laws.
- Definition of cruelty: Includes physical and mental harassment, dowry-related abuse, and acts likely to drive a woman to suicide or cause grave injury to health.
- Punishment: Imprisonment up to three years and fine.
- Social context: Introduced amid rising dowry deaths and domestic abuse, recognising that most such crimes happen within homes and rarely come to light.
This provision works alongside the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 to address domestic abuse.
The Allahabad High Court Order
The High Court directed that:
- No arrest or coercive action (police cannot arrest, detain, or otherwise pressurise the accused) should be taken for two months from the date of complaint — a cool-off period (a waiting period aimed at exploring reconciliation before legal action is enforced).
- Family Welfare Committees should be formed at the district level to screen Section 498-A complaints before police investigation.
In July 2025, the Supreme Court upheld these directions, making them applicable more broadly.
Why This is Problematic
- Blanket Suspension of Arrest
○ Criminal law permits immediate arrest when credible evidence of a serious offence exists.
○ The ruling forces a 60-day delay, even in urgent situations. - Risk to Victims
○ Victims may continue to face violence during the “cool-off” period.
○ Fear of retaliation could deter women from reporting abuse. - Institutionalising Delay
○ Mandating prior screening by non-police bodies risks slowing urgent intervention and undermines police powers in emergencies.
The Misuse Narrative
- Sushil Kumar Sharma vs Union of India (2005): Warned of “legal terrorism” by false complaints.
- Preeti Gupta vs State of Jharkhand (2010): Flagged potential misuse in non-genuine cases.
- Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar (2014): Issued arrest guidelines to prevent harassment of innocents.
However:
- No conclusive national data proves large-scale misuse.
- NCRB (2022) conviction rate ~18% — comparable to many other crimes.
- Acquittals often result from social pressure, witness hostility, and evidentiary gaps — not necessarily false accusations.
Ground Reality: Under-Reporting
- NCRB (2022): 1,34,506 cases registered under Section 498-A.
- NFHS-5: Domestic violence prevalence far exceeds police records, suggesting under-reporting.
- Rising case counts may reflect greater awareness, not misuse.
Legal Concerns
- Judicial Overreach: Modifies criminal procedure without legislative sanction.
- Inequality Before Law: Creates special procedural delays for one category of crime.
- Contradiction with Past SC Positions: Earlier judgments upheld the need to protect women despite misuse concerns.
Implications for Gender Justice
- Weakens immediate legal protection for women in abusive households.
- Sets a precedent for diluting other gender-protective laws.
- Reinforces social perception that domestic violence is a “family matter” and not an urgent crime.
Way Forward
- Balance Safeguards with Urgency
○ Instead of a fixed “cool-off period,” adopt a case-by-case judicial review within 48 hours to decide on immediate arrest based on severity. - Strengthen Investigations
○ Provide police with specialised training in handling domestic violence sensitively and effectively. - Retain Prompt Protection Measures
○ Use protection orders under the Domestic Violence Act parallel to criminal proceedings to ensure victims’ safety. - Improve Data Transparency
○ Maintain district-level statistics on both genuine and false complaints for evidence-based policymaking. - Reform Family Welfare Committees
○ Ensure they assist investigation without replacing police powers, and make them accountable for delays. - Legislative Clarity
○ Parliament should clearly define permissible safeguards in Section 498-A cases to prevent ad-hoc judicial dilution.
Conclusion
While discouraging false cases is necessary, it should not come at the cost of women’s safety. The July 2025 ruling risks reversing decades of legal progress in combating domestic violence. Judicial directions must balance rights of the accused with the urgent need for swift, survivor-centred protection mechanisms.
Mains Practice Question:
Q1.“Critically analyse the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shivangi Bansal vs Sahib Bansal on the suspension of arrest under Section 498-A IPC. How does it impact gender justice and the criminal justice system?”
Q2.The July 2025 Supreme Court ruling in Shivangi Bansal vs Sahib Bansal has been criticised for diluting Section 498-A. Discuss its implications and suggest reforms to balance rights of the accused with protection of victims.
SOURCE- THE HINDU
Found this helpful?
Bookmark for revision, Practice the mains question, and
Share with fellow aspirants! THANK YOU😊