Supreme Court has shown maturity in agreeing to revisit its own judgement on Section 498 A
By agreeing to revisit its earlier judgment diluting certain provisions of the dowry abuse deterrent Section 498A, which statistics showed was being misused by some disgruntled women to seek vengeance against their husbands and in-laws by putting them behind bars instantaneously, the Supreme Court has proved that it is not above introspection or a mature interpretation of the law when it comes to ensuring gender justice. last July, a two-judge bench had disallowed immediate arrest of the accused on the complainant’s plea, and filtered any future action through a family committee tasked with talking to and reconciling both parties. If an arrest was indeed warranted, it could only happen after this round of investigation. The court was relying on the statistical disparity brought out by National Crime Bureau records that while a chargesheet was filed in 90 per cent of the cases, conviction rate was less than 15 per cent. The court read the gap as being one that reflected a response of vengeance instead of it being indicative of the larger societal devil, “compromise”, that family and relatives usually force the victim into over time. The low conviction rate could also imply that there wasn’t enough legally actionable evidence that the victim could muster. In many cases, a complainant woman has been known to be turned out of both her marital and parental homes for speaking out and without access to independent resources, she cannot even afford legal aid, leave aside pursuing the case to its logical end. So, when an NGO sought inclusion of women members in the committee, the court went beyond and ordered a review in October, a fact it reiterated on Friday.
First, the court wants to make sure that it stays within the area of jurisprudence and not encroach into the legislative space. Second, the court does realise that in the larger picture of crimes against women, and particularly in dowry cases, Section 498A needed to be stringent but the victimisation of men also has to be considered even while ensuring the stringent provisions are implemented fully in the majority of cases which would be genuine. The interests of a wider arc of distressed women, who could seek protection under the law without being coerced and pressured into “working things out” or being assaulted into submission, should also not be compromised. Already, there is a drop in cases of women seeking redress under 498 A since the July verdict. In taking care of the aberrations and false cases which also exist, the court will do well to do so without being seen as disempowering and dispossessing women with genuine complaints under Section 498 A, particularly in rural India where women often go out on a limb just to get their story heard and a case registered and who are still threatened with death if they complain about dowry. If the law is diluted and she is dragged through more procedural layers and delays, chances are that the more powerful offender gets the upper hand in organising counter evidence or threat tactics. This is not to say that the interests and reputations of innocent men be set aside. In fact, stringent punitive measures need to be built within the ambit of the law to save men from false and malicious allegations rather than diluting its provisions.