Weaponisation of Section 498A

The principle of presumption of innocence till proven guilty shifts the burden of proving the guilt to the prosecution. But in some instances like those related to Section 498A of the IPC (now sections 85 and 86 in Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita), the burden is shifted to the defendant, who is left at the mercy of the prosecution, including the police, till he proves his innocence.

Section 498A is often used as a weapon to settle personal scores rather than being used as a shield against the harasser.

In 1983, Section 498A was introduced in the IPC, which states that whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term that may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

The law, which was enacted to provide a shield to a married woman from harassment by her husband and his family, has been misused to a great extent, a fact that has been acknowledged by the Supreme Court in its various judgments.

What the courts said about its weaponisation

In 2014, the Supreme Court made some important observations in relation to the abject misuse of Section 498A. In its judgment titled Arnesh Kumar versus the State of Bihar, the apex court held that the law was enacted to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives, but the “fact that Section 498A is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives”.

The judgment reads, “The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In quite a number of cases, the bed-ridden grandfathers and grandmothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested.”

The apex court, while citing statistics published by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), highlighted certain facts that were worrisome. According to the NCRB data, nearly a quarter of those arrested under this provision in 2012 were women, which evidently means that mothers and sisters of the husbands were ‘liberally included in their arrest net’.

Another disturbing fact was that while the rate of charge-sheeting in cases under Section 498A of IPC was as high as 93 per cent, the conviction rate was only around 15 per cent, which is the lowest across all heads. The data makes it clear that while the cases were filed easily on the most frivolous grounds and instigations, they fell flat in the court of law as they were not able to withstand the legal scrutiny.

Trauma before acquittal

As the crime under Section 498A of IPC is a cognizable offence, it gives immense power to the police to arrest the accused without any judicial approval. While in most cases, the accused is acquitted, the tribulations of trial, litigation cost, and the stigma attached to being an undertrial and accused of a crime together cause irredeemable damage to the life prospects of the accused persons.

In yet another landmark judgment titled Preeti Gupta versus the State of Jharkhand, the apex court dwelt deeply into the issue of rampant misuse of Section 498A. The observations were so strong that they became a reference point for the Law Commission’s Report No. 243 in August 2012, probing the extent of the misuse of the law and suggesting measures to tackle it. In its judgment, the apex court called for a ‘serious relook of the entire provision by the legislation.”

The court acknowledged that criminal trials lead to immense suffering for all concerned. “Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not be able to wipe out the deep scars of suffering of ignominy. Unfortunately, a large number of these complaints have not only flooded the courts but also led to enormous social unrest affecting peace, harmony, and happiness of the society. It is imperative for the legislature to take into consideration the informed public opinion and the pragmatic realities in consideration and make necessary changes in the relevant provisions of law”, the court observed.

In a case titled Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam versus The State of Bihar, which was decided in February 2022, the apex court held, “In recent times, matrimonial litigation in the country has also increased significantly and there is a greater disaffection and friction surrounding the institution of marriage, now, more than ever. This has resulted in an increased tendency to employ provisions such as 498A of IPC as instruments to settle personal scores against the husband and his relatives.”

A solution to prevent misuse

The Malimath Committee on the Reforms of the Criminal Justice System, which submitted its report in 2003, made an important recommendation to check the misuse of the law. The committee recommended making the offence under Section 498A bailable and compoundable.

The fact is that despite several observations made by the Supreme Court regarding the misuse of this law, it continues to be a handy tool to settle personal scores. It is not that anyone is holding Subhash’s wife guilty- the investigation is still ongoing- but such cases tend to highlight the abject misuse of such laws.