In a current ruling in X v. State of Telangana & One other, the Supreme Courtroom of India made some stunning remarks. Justices B. Nagarathna and Kotiswar Singh said that there’s a “rising tendency” for girls to misuse Part 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)—a provision designed to guard girls from cruelty in marriage—through the use of it as a device for private vendetta in opposition to their husbands and in-laws. Whereas the judges clarified that girls who’ve suffered cruelty shouldn’t stay silent, their observations threat perpetuating dangerous stereotypes about girls misusing the authorized system.
Within the mentioned case, a lady filed an FIR in February 2022 alleging cruelty underneath Part 498A and dowry harassment underneath the Dowry Prohibition Act. The accused included not simply her husband but additionally six members of his household. Whereas the Excessive Courtroom rejected the husband’s plea to quash the FIR, it restricted arrests till the cost sheet was filed, as per established authorized tips (Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar). Nonetheless, the Supreme Courtroom quashed the FIR in opposition to the husband and in-laws, citing she made imprecise and unsubstantiated allegations.
Police Effectivity vs Sufferer’s Intent
What’s regarding is the broader narrative these remarks create. Based mostly on a long time of expertise working with home violence survivors, we all know that imprecise and omnibus allegations in FIRs are sometimes a mirrored image of police inefficiency reasonably than the sufferer’s intent. Girls steadily face insensitivity at police stations, the place complaints are both dismissed outright or recorded haphazardly. As an alternative of holding the police accountable for poorly recorded statements, the Supreme Courtroom seems to position the burden on the sufferer, suggesting that she ought to guarantee her criticism is detailed and exact—a near-impossible expectation in a hostile system.
The Courtroom additionally made troubling inferences in regards to the absence of earlier complaints by the sufferer. The justices famous that she married in 2015 and had two kids in 2016 and 2017, concluding that there was possible no harassment throughout this era. This assumption will not be solely baseless however ignores the truth that many ladies delay submitting complaints resulting from societal strain, lack of sources, or repeated makes an attempt by authorities to counsel them into “settling” the matter. The absence of prior authorized motion can’t and shouldn’t be equated with an absence of violence.
The judges highlighted that the sufferer “deserted” her two kids, who stay in her husband’s custody. This assumption, too, is problematic. Girls usually face insurmountable obstacles to in search of custody, together with monetary constraints, lack of authorized help, and societal stigma. The Courtroom might have thought-about the likelihood that the sufferer was denied entry to her kids or made a painful option to prioritise their stability.
Little Scrutiny Of Letter
One other facet of the judgment raises severe issues. The Courtroom referred to a letter the sufferer allegedly wrote to the police in 2021, admitting she had left her matrimonial dwelling after a quarrel about chatting with one other man and promising to not “repeat such acts”. This letter, produced by her husband, was accepted at face worth. But, anybody aware of how girls are pressured throughout “counselling” periods at police stations is aware of the extent of coercion they face. It’s alarming that the Courtroom didn’t scrutinise the circumstances underneath which this letter was written, particularly in a case involving allegations of home violence.
Equally disquieting is the Courtroom’s dismissal of the dowry allegations. Regardless of the sufferer’s claims of considerable dowry given on the time of marriage, the judges selected to deal with procedural points and imprecise allegations reasonably than permitting the trial to proceed. By doing so, they missed a possibility to bolster the illegality of dowry—a deeply entrenched crime that claims the lives of 18 girls day-after-day in India, as per the Nationwide Crime Information Bureau (2022).
The judgment additionally framed the FIR as a retaliatory measure, filed after the husband sought a mutual consent divorce. This conclusion overlooks the truth that girls usually endure violence for years earlier than taking authorized motion, with divorce threats serving as the ultimate set off. By framing her criticism as vengeful, the Courtroom dangers additional discouraging girls from in search of authorized recourse.
Maybe most manifestly, the sufferer was neither current nor represented in the course of the proceedings. Given the systemic hurdles girls face in accessing authorized help, the Courtroom might have ensured that she had the sources to current her case. As an alternative, it delivered a judgment that not solely undermines her claims but additionally units a harmful precedent for future instances.
Justice Krishna Iyer as soon as mentioned, “A socially sensitised decide is a greater statutory armour in opposition to gender outrage than lengthy clauses of a fancy statute.” Sadly, this case illustrates how far we nonetheless are from reaching such sensitivity in our judiciary.
How 498A Is Constantly Undermined
Part 498A, enacted practically 40 years in the past, stays a vital authorized safeguard in opposition to home violence. But, its effectiveness is persistently undermined by narratives of misuse, regardless of overwhelming proof of the prevalence of home violence in India. The Nationwide Household Well being Survey (2019–20) discovered that 30% of girls aged 18–49 had skilled bodily violence because the age of 15—a staggering determine that interprets to over 200 million girls.
The rising pattern of informal and contradictory statements made by Supreme Courtroom judges relating to home violence should be addressed directly. These remarks have a direct and vital impression on how each the police and judiciary reply to instances on the bottom, probably undermining efforts to guard victims and ship justice. The judiciary should converse with better compassion recognising the systemic obstacles that stop girls from in search of justice.
(Audrey D’mello is the Director of Majlis, and Flavia Agnes is a authorized scholar and ladies’s rights lawyer. Majlis provides authorized counselling to girls and youngsters going through sexual and home violence. For assist, name 07506732641.)
Disclaimer: These are the non-public opinions of the authors