Why in News: The Supreme Court (July 2025) upheld Allahabad HC’s 2022 guidelines on a two-month cooling period and referral to Family Welfare Committees in 498A/BNS cases, raising concerns of delayed justice for victims.
Context & Background
- Section 498A IPC (now Section 85 BNS) was enacted to punish cruelty against women in matrimonial settings.
- Courts noted misuse of 498A (false FIRs, arbitrary arrests).
- Multiple safeguards evolved:
- Lalita Kumari (2014): Preliminary enquiry permissible in matrimonial disputes.
- Criminal Law (Amendment), 2008: “Principle of necessity” for arrest.
- Arnesh Kumar (2014): Checklist, notice before arrest.
- Satender Kumar Antil (2022): Bail if Arnesh Kumar not followed.
NCRB Data (2015–2022)
- Registered cases: ↑ from 1.13 lakh (2015) to 1.40 lakh (2022).
- Arrests: ↓ from 1.87 lakh (2015) to 1.45 lakh (2022).
- Indicates balanced approach: protection of accused liberties without curtailing victims’ access.
Issues with Judicial Experimentalism
1. Cooling period delays justice – victim deprived of timely remedy despite filing FIR.
2. Erodes institutional autonomy – police and magistrates’ statutory powers curtailed.
3. No statutory backing – FWCs not provided in law; undefined scope of authority.
4. Repetition of past missteps – similar FWC directions in Rajesh Sharma (2017) rolled back in Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar (2018).
5. Regressive implications – prioritises misuse concerns over genuine victims’ rights.
Arguments in Favour of Judicial Safeguards
- Rising misuse allegations necessitate checks to prevent harassment of husbands/families.
- Prevents arbitrary arrests and protects personal liberty.
- Promotes reconciliation through mediation in genuine cases.
Counter-Arguments
- Misuse already addressed via 2008 amendment, Arnesh Kumar, and Antil.
- Cooling period exacerbates victim’s plight, particularly in domestic violence situations.
- Undermines constitutional guarantee of speedy justice (Art. 21).
- Judiciary oversteps domain of legislature by creating quasi-judicial bodies (FWCs).
Way Forward
1. Revisit ruling – SC must review in light of Social Action Forum (2018) precedent.
2. Strengthen existing safeguards – better police training, stricter compliance with Arnesh Kumar.
3. Victim-centric approach – ensure immediate safety, shelter, legal aid.
4. Institutional reforms – fast-track family courts, victim protection mechanisms.
5. Balanced jurisprudence – curb misuse without diluting genuine victims’ rights.
UPSC Relevance
GS-II (Polity & Governance): Judicial activism vs separation of powers, access to justice.
Mains Practice Question
Q. Judicial experimentalism in matrimonial cruelty cases risks undermining victims’ right to justice. Critically examine in light of recent Supreme Court rulings.