Supreme Court’s Endorsement of Arrest Suspension

The Supreme Court, in Shivangi Bansal vs Sahib Bansal (July 2024), upheld a directive suspending arrest or coercive action for two months in cases under Section 498-A IPC (now Section 85 BNS), sparking debate on its impact on women’s safety and criminal justice.

Legal Context and Legislative Intent

• Purpose of Section 498-A: Enacted in 1983 to penalise cruelty against women by husbands or their relatives, including dowry harassment, driving to suicide, or causing harm to life or health, with imprisonment up to three years and a fine.
• Socio-Cultural Background: Introduced amid rising dowry deaths and recognition that reported cases represented only a fraction of domestic cruelty, intended to work in harmony with the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
• Parliamentary Policy Choice: Based on legislative deliberation and empirical assessment, Parliament expanded the scope to cover all forms of cruelty within marriage, considering India’s socio-cultural realities.

Judicial Directives and Criticism

• High Court and Supreme Court Orders: Allahabad High Court directed a two-month “cool-off” period before arrest and creation of district Family Welfare Committees; the Supreme Court endorsed these directions.
• Impact on Complainants: The blanket suspension of arrest potentially endangers victims, discourages reporting, and legitimises police inaction in serious allegations of domestic violence.
• Procedural Concerns: The judgment was delivered without detailed examination of socio-political implications or extensive hearing of the State, despite affecting a central penal provision.

Misuse Narrative and Data-Based Assessment

• Judicial References to Misuse: Past Supreme Court rulings (Preeti Gupta, Sushil Kumar Sharma, Arnesh Kumar) have flagged possible misuse, issuing arrest guidelines, but without conclusive empirical proof of systemic abuse.
• Statistical Reality: NCRB 2022 data shows 1,34,506 cases registered under Section 498-A with an 18% conviction rate—higher than many other offences—alongside NFHS-5 findings of gross underreporting of domestic violence.
• Legal Principle vs. Current Action: In Sushil Kumar Sharma (2005), the Court upheld the law, stating misuse is no ground for striking it down; the current ruling arguably contradicts that principle, risking erosion of victims’ legal protection.

Practice Question:

Critically examine the Supreme Court’s endorsement of a two-month suspension of arrest in Section 498-A cases in light of the balance between safeguarding against legal misuse and ensuring effective protection for victims of domestic cruelty.