The Supreme Court of India, in July 2025, endorsed the Allahabad High Court’s guidelines to curb the misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. This section addresses cruelty against women by husbands or their families. The guidelines include a two-month ‘cooling period’ before any coercive action and referral of complaints to a Family Welfare Committee (FWC). This move has sparked debate over victims’ rights and the autonomy of criminal justice agencies.
Background of Section 498A
Section 498A was enacted to protect married women from cruelty by their husbands or relatives. It covers physical, mental, and emotional abuse. The law aims to provide swift justice to victims in matrimonial disputes.
Concerns Over Misuse
Courts have observed increasing misuse of Section 498A through false FIRs and arrests. This misuse has caused distress to innocent accused, mostly husbands and their families. To prevent this, courts introduced safeguards like preliminary inquiry before registering FIRs.
Judicial Safeguards and Reforms
The Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari mandated preliminary inquiry before FIR registration in matrimonial cases. The 2008 amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure added the ‘principle of necessity’ for arrests. The 2014 Arnesh Kumar judgment restricted arbitrary arrests by police through a checklist and notice for appearance. The 2022 Satender Kumar Antil ruling further strengthened bail protections for wrongful arrests.
Impact on Arrests and Crime Data
According to National Crime Records Bureau data, arrests under Section 498A were among the top five until 2016 and remained in the top 10 thereafter. Between 2015 and 2022, offences reported increased from 1,13,403 to 1,40,019, but arrests declined from 1,87,067 to 1,45,095. This shows improved balance between protecting accused rights and ensuring victim justice.
Controversy Over ‘Cooling Period’ and Family Welfare Committees
The Allahabad High Court introduced a two-month ‘cooling period’ and referral to FWCs before any coercive action. Critics argue this delays justice for victims and undermines criminal justice agencies’ autonomy. The absence of statutory authority for FWCs and unclear jurisdiction raise further questions. Similar directions by the Supreme Court in 2017 were later overturned for being regressive and beyond judicial competence.
Judicial Experimentalism and Victims’ Rights
The recent ruling is seen as judicial experimentalism that hampers victims’ prompt access to justice. The referral to FWCs and enforced delay contradict legislative intent and weaken the criminal justice system’s functioning. Courts have stressed the need to revisit such rulings to maintain a balance between protecting victims and preventing misuse.
Need for Reassessment
Given existing legislative and judicial measures to prevent misuse, the continuation of such cooling periods and quasi-judicial committees demands re-evaluation. Protecting victims’ rights and ensuring the autonomy of justice institutions remain paramount in addressing matrimonial cruelty cases.
Questions for UPSC:
- Critically discuss the role of judicial safeguards in preventing misuse of criminal laws in India, with reference to Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
- Examine the impact of legislative amendments and Supreme Court judgments on arrest procedures under Indian criminal law and their implications for individual liberty.
- Analyse the balance between protecting victims’ rights and preventing misuse of laws in the Indian criminal justice system, citing relevant case laws and statutory provisions.
- Estimate the challenges faced by the criminal justice system in handling matrimonial cruelty cases and suggest reforms to enhance both victim protection and accused safeguards.
