Misuse Section 498A Guidelines upheld by Supreme Court

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India in an important decision in Shivangi Bansal vs Sahib Bansal (2025) has affirmed the guidelines laid down by the Allahabad High Court to deal with the perceived abuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The rules recommend two months of cooling off period prior to coercive action and provide for referrals of the complaints to Family Welfare Committees (FWCs). The ruling has once again sparked the controversies concerning the balancing of the rights of women and protection against false arrests.

Protection and misuse- section 498A.

Section 498A was made in order to safeguard women against cruelty and harassment by husbands and in-laws. Although it has empowered most victims of domestic violence, courts and commissions have on numerous occasions raised its abuse by false or exaggerated complaints which in some cases lead to arbitrary arrests and harassment of innocent family members.

Courtroom Guarantees on Abuse.

The judiciary has developed over the years to establish protection against abuse. The Court ordered preliminary investigations in matrimonial cases in Lalita Kumari (2014). Strict arrest procedures and notice were proposed in the Arnesh Kumar judgment (2014). Subsequently, Satender Kumar Antil (2022) increased the safeguards against false arrest. All these measures established limits to the powers of the police but left a way in which real victims can pursue justice.

The 'Cooling Period' and FWCs

Directions of the Allahabad high court, which are now supported by the Supreme Court, introduce new dimensions of questioning. The cooling period of two months is supposed to promote reconciliation and discourage hasty arrests, whereas FWCs play the role of mediators prior to the further development of the case. Opponents, but on the other hand, say that these mechanisms slow the delivery of justice, interfere with the autonomy of women, and are not supported by statutes. Provisions of this type in Rajesh Sharma (2017) were also invalidated in 2018 due to the perceived judicial overreach.

Impact and Concerns

According to the data provided by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) the number of Section 498A cases rose by 113,403 in 2015 up to 140,019 in 2022 but the number of arrests decreased significantly. This has an implication that judicial protection which existed previously already mitigated random police action. Adding more obstacles such as cooling down intervals can pose a threat of depriving the real victims of real-time help.

Conclusion

The case indicates how the judiciary tried to strike a balance between protection and abuse and at the same time protect the rights of the victims. Critics however caution that such judicial innovations as FWCs and cooling periods that are not sanctioned by law have the potential to erase the distinction between adjudication and governance. A cautious re-evaluation is needed so as to be fair to those accused of a crime and expedite justice to the victims.