Answer:

IPC Section 498A 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, which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine." Such an offence is cognizable, non-compoundable and non-bailable. It is deemed as ‘the anti-dowry law’.

In Rajesh Sharma and Ors vs State of UP case (2017), the SC laid down directions to prevent misuse of Section 498A against a husband or his relatives. The guidelines are based on following observations by the SC:

♤ The law has been misused by wives and relatives and thus has violated the basic human rights of men.

♤ The court relied on NCRB data of 2005, 2012 and 2013 of the number of people arrested, convicted and acquitted and concluded that since conviction rate is low, most cases registered under 498A are false.

♤ Seizure of passports and issuing of interpole notices were seen as problematic. In lieu of these observations, the court provided following guidelines:

♤ Cognizable offences have been turned into non-cognizable offences.

♤ Special rules for bail of husbands have been created.

♤ The provisions of the Passport Act have been altered.

However, there are serious issues with the judgment as it institutionalizes the myth of most cases being frivolous under section 498A. This can be understood from the following points:

♤ The NCRB data does not depict reality as there can be various reasons for acquittal, for e.g. poor investigation, settlement through mediation etc.

♤ The court did not co-relate data from other sources like NFHS-3, women’s studies

centers, etc. which paint a different picture regarding the issue.

♤ The judgment states that a ‘Family Welfare Committee’ drawn from members of society has to be constituted in each district. However, this is virtual privatization of policing function and delays investigation. Moreover, committee members can be unqualified and biased.

♤ There is already a bias against women in law enforcement agencies, i.e. a preconception that disgruntled wives are misusing the law.

♤ Low conviction rate exists across the board, isolating crimes against women seems illogical.

Impact of the judgement on women and their rights

♤ The law was passed in 1980s due to high number of dowry deaths. Earlier, the accused were immediately arrested and had the onus of burden to prove their innocence. However, the revised order is a step back as many safeguards have been introduced for the accused. This will deter women from taking legal recourse during instances of harassment.

♤ The SC unconsciously restores and legitimizes the construct that a woman rushes into litigation and criminal prosecution; however, generally women are weighed down by gender relations and often tolerate violence.

♤ The changed provision w.r.t. the passport will make it easier for accused husbands and NRIs to abscond.

♤ The importance of the law is undeniable in India's patriarchal social structure. Dowry remains unchecked and is often practiced despite implementation of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Hence, some of the recent orders may weaken the grounds for genuine victims. Thus, the law must retain its progressive bias in favour of wronged women, without inadvertently wronging men.