Context:

• In July 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered its judgment in Shivangi Bansal vs Sahib Bansal, effectively endorsing the suspension of arrests or coercive action under Section 498-A of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code (IPC).
• Critics argue that this decision rests on false premises and poses a serious risk to both criminal justice and gender equality.
• This article examines the law’s socio-legal context, the Court’s reliance on the “misuse” narrative without empirical backing, and the potential erosion of protections for women facing domestic cruelty.

Section 498-A

• Section 498-A IPC (now Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) penalises cruelty against a woman by her husband or his relatives, prescribing imprisonment of up to three years and a fine.
• Cruelty includes dowry harassment, acts driving the woman to suicide, or causing injury to life or health.
• The law was introduced in 1983 to address widespread domestic violence and dowry-related harassment.
• Parliament expanded its scope to cover all forms of cruelty within marriage, following a surge in dowry deaths and recognising that extreme cases like suicides and murders represented only a small fraction of the problem.

Supreme Court Endorses Blanket Protection from Arrest in 498-A Cases

• The Allahabad High Court had earlier directed that in cases under Section 498-A, no arrest or coercive action be taken against accused persons for a two-month “cool-off” period from the filing of the complaint.
• It also directed that such cases be referred to district-level family welfare committees.
• The Supreme Court has now endorsed these directions, effectively granting temporary blanket protection from arrest even when criminal law permits it.
• This decision, made in an individual dispute without detailed examination of its socio-political impact or hearing the State government extensively.
• This means that even with strong evidence of serious crimes, the police cannot make arrests for at least two months.
• Critics argue this risks the safety of complainants, deters victims from lodging complaints, and legitimises police inaction in investigating marital violence.
• While mediation and alternative dispute resolution may be beneficial in sensitive family matters like divorce or child custody, such approaches are unsuitable when serious allegations of violence, falling under penal law, are involved.

The Debate on ‘Misuse’ of the Anti-Cruelty Law

• The perception that Section 498-A is often “misused” has found resonance even in Supreme Court judgments.
• In Preeti Gupta vs State of Jharkhand (2010), the Court noted many non-bona fide cases, while in Sushil Kumar Sharma vs Union of India (2005), it warned of “legal terrorism” through misuse.
• In Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar (2014), the Court issued strict guidelines against automatic arrests, directing police to assess necessity under Section 41 of the then Criminal Procedure Code.
• These rulings have already made police action in such cases more cautious.

Lack of Empirical Evidence

• Despite frequent references to misuse, courts have not relied on concrete empirical data to substantiate such claims.
• Most cases before the Court involve specific disputes with conflicting narratives, making it difficult to generalise.
• Given the complex social nature of marital cruelty, courts have limited institutional capacity to question the legislative wisdom that enacted such protections.

Conviction Rates and Misinterpretations

• Arguments citing low conviction rates — around 18% as per NCRB 2022 data — are misleading. This rate is still higher than that for many other offences.
• Moreover, low convictions do not inherently prove misuse; they often reflect challenges in investigation, systemic bias, familial pressure on victims to compromise, and the difficulty of proving offences occurring in private spaces.
• High evidentiary standards in criminal law, combined with the reluctance of family members to testify, further explain lower conviction rates without undermining the law’s necessity.

Survey Evidence Counters Misuse Narrative

• NCRB data shows 1,34,506 cases registered under Section 498-A in 2022.
• However, the National Family Health Survey-5 reveals significant under-reporting of violence against women in many states.
• According to the women’s centre Humsafar, the rise in reported cases is likely due to greater legal awareness among women, not necessarily an increase in incidents.
• Even if some false cases exist, the possibility of misuse is inherent in any legislation. The truth of allegations can only be established through proper investigation.
• By suspending the anti-cruelty law’s immediate applicability, the Court has heightened the vulnerability of victims and weakened their access to justice.

Conclusion

• Placing certain criminal provisions under stricter scrutiny than others undermines the uniformity and consistency of the criminal justice system. This selective approach risks creating systemic imbalances.
• In Sushil Kumar Sharma (2005), the Supreme Court upheld the law’s constitutional validity, emphasising that misuse is no reason to strike down legislation.
• The current stance effectively contradicts that principle, restricting victims’ chances of obtaining meaningful justice.