Here’s how the Supreme Court aims to prevent misuse of Section 498A IPC

The Supreme Court today issued a slew of directions with a view to preventing the misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with cruelty to married women at the hands of family members.

The Bench of Justices Adarsh Kumar Goel and Uday Umesh Lalit was hearing a dowry case wherein the appellant husband and his family members were summoned under Section 498A. The appellant also asked the Court to pass directions to prevent the misuse of the provision.

To this end, the Court requested the assistance of Additional Solicitor General Atmaram Nadkarni and Senior Advocate V Giri, who was assisted by advocates Uttara Babbar, Pragya Baghel and Svadha Shanker.

The main issue deliberated upon by the Amicus was whether there was a need to check the tendency to rope in all family members to settle a matrimonial dispute.

Nadkarni submitted that there was a growing trend of getting relatives, including senior citizens, minor children and siblings involved in cases of 498A without any evidence of physical or mental harm or injury. He also referred to National Crime Records Bureau records, which pointed to the increasing misuse of the provision in question.

The NCRB records show that in 2009, a total of 1,74,395 people were arrested under 498A and 8,352 cases were declared false. For the year 2012, the rate of charge-sheet filing under the provision was at 93.6%, while the conviction rate was a mere 14.4%.

V Giri submitted that arrest in an offence under Section 498A should be only made after recording reasons and with express approval from the Superintendent of Police. He also suggested that the procedure under Section 14 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, of counseling should be made mandatory before registration of a case under Section 498A.

Taking into account the suggestions of the Amicus Curiae, the 243rd Law Commission Report and various high court and Supreme Court decisions on the issue, the Bench decided that it was important to intervene.

“Function of this Court is not to legislate but only to interpret the law. No doubt in doing so laying down of norms is sometimes unavoidable.”

Therefore, the Bench proceeded to make a number of directions, the most significant of which is the constitution of Family Welfare Committees to vet cases of domestic violence by family members. These Committees will comprise “paralegal volunteers/social workers/retired persons/wives of working officers/other citizens who may be found suitable and willing”.

The main function of these Committees would be to review complaints filed under Section 498A and interact with the parties involved in these cases. They are also required to prepare a report of the case and submit it to the relevant authority.

Quite significantly, the apex court has directed that no arrest will be made pending the submission of this report.

The Court also directed that cases under 498A may only be investigated by designated Investigating Officers of the area. It has also been left open to District and Sessions judges to dispose of criminal proceedings should the parties arrive at a settlement. Judges will also have the power to club all matrimonial disputes related to the parties so that “a holistic view is taken”.

On the issue of bail, the Bench directed,

“If a bail application is filed with at least one clear day’s notice to the Public Prosecutor/complainant, the same may be decided as far as possible on the same day. Recovery of disputed dowry items may not by itself be a ground for denial of bail if maintenance or other rights of wife/minor children can otherwise be protected.

Needless to say that in dealing with bail matters, individual roles, prima facie truth of the allegations, requirement of further arrest/ custody and interest of justice must be carefully weighed.”

The personal appearance of relatives is not required, and they will be allowed to make appearance by video conference. The Court also stated that impounding of passports and Red Corner Notices for people residing abroad should not be a routine.

Lastly, the Court issued a caveat that these directions would not apply to offences involving tangible physical injuries or death.

To conclude, the Court directed the National Legal Services Authority to submit a report on the working of these directions after six months, and listed the matter for April 2018.

Read the judgment: