The Supreme Court in July, passed a verdict laying down extensive guidelines on the procedure to be followed after numerous instances of misuse of Section 498A,were brought before the court.
The guidelines prohibited immediate arrest and purported the setting up of Family Welfare Committees in all Districts to make a Report on the complaints filed under 498A. There were also other directions to the State and the Police clarifying that verification of the charges must be made before making an arrest.
However, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, comprised of Chief Justice Dipak Mishra and Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and D.Y. Chandrachud, expressed concern over the same and stated that it is not in agreement with the earlier verdict, which had actually diluted the severity of section 498A. The bench stated that “[the] Judgment had laid certain guidelines for arrest under section 498A of IPC which appears to be an exercise under the domain of legislature. We are not in agreement with the view taken as it is liable to affect the rights of woman.”
The matter was brought before the bench in a plea filed by an NGO ‘Nyayadhar’, an organisation formed by a group of lady advocates in Ahmednagar, Maharashtra. The claim was that the earlier decision made the previously available strong weapon valueless, by way of its dilution. The plea made suggestions of changes in the earlier guidelines – such as the inclusion of at least two women members in the three-member Family Welfare Committee, as mandated under the July decision.
The verdict in July, passed by a two-judge bench, focused on the abuse of 498A, whereby women filed complaints against husbands and their extended families, to bring about sure arrest, time in jail and ancillary harassment even when there was no actual circumstance warranting the same.
Since evidence and verification of the allegation under 498A only came subsequent to arrest, a complaint under the impugned section was at least sometimes, used as a weapon to ensure some suffering to extract vengeance. The court, therefore, diluted the provision, upholding the rights of innocent persons who may be implicated in cases without any substantial base. However, the converse goes that women who indeed suffered abuse and matters that warrant immediate arrest, have lost the recourse they had under the provision.
The earlier directions were clarified not to apply to the offences involving tangible physical injuries or death. The court has asked the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) to give a report about the need for change in the directions, or for any further directions, and have listed the matter for consideration in April 2018.
The current move by the court to revise the decision, focuses on the rights of the abused women, and seems to disagree with the earlier verdict. The need of the hour is to strike a balance between the two contradicting scenarios, to bring about equilibrium where the rights of innocent family members are protected, while at the same time, added lenience does not deprive women of their rights.