[Answered] The Supreme Court’s steps to prevent the misuse of Section 498A IPC are termed ‘judicial experimentalism’. Critically analyze whether such measures undermine a victim’s pursuit of justice.

Introduction

Section 498A IPC (now Section 85 BNS), introduced in 1983 to combat cruelty against women, is both a protective shield and a contested provision, raising concerns about misuse, liberty, and judicial experimentalism.

Understanding Section 498A and its Safeguards

1. Enacted to address dowry-related cruelty, harassment, and domestic violence.
2. Over time, courts flagged its misuse in false complaints and rampant arrests of husbands/relatives.
3. Institutional safeguards evolved:

• 2008 CrPC amendment: introduced the principle of necessity for arrest.
• Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar (2014): mandated a checklist, limited automatic arrests, required notice for appearance.
• Satender Kumar Antil (2022): reinforced bail provisions in cases of wrongful arrest.

These reforms balanced victim rights with accused liberty, ensuring the system was not weaponized.

Judicial Experimentalism: Cooling Period and FWCs

1. In Mukesh Bansal vs State of U.P. (2022), the Allahabad High Court introduced: A two-month cooling period post-FIR/complaint and referral to Family Welfare Committees (FWCs) for mediation.
2. Endorsed by the Supreme Court in Shivangi Bansal vs Sahib Bansal (2025).
3. Aims to curb misuse of Section 498A through quasi-judicial mediation before coercive action.

Critical Concerns

1. Denial of Prompt Justice: Victims face delays: FIRs lie dormant during the cooling period. Contravenes Article 21 (Right to Life with Dignity) and prompt redressal principle recognized in Lalita Kumari vs Govt. of U.P. (2014).
2. Erosion of Criminal Justice Autonomy: FWCs, with no statutory backing, encroach on police and magistrate powers. Undermines the functional autonomy of law enforcement agencies.
3. Repeating Judicial Overreach: Similar experiment in Rajesh Sharma vs State of U.P. (2017) mandated FWCs, but was overturned in Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar (2018) as regressive and beyond judicial competence. Reviving such ideas risks legitimizing extra-legal structures.
4. Statutory and Judicial Safeguards Already Exist: Arrests under Section 498A dropped from 1.87 lakh (2015) to 1.45 lakh (2022) despite rising complaints (NCRB 2022). Indicates safeguards like Arnesh Kumar are effective, making new experiments unnecessary.
5. Victim’s Vulnerability: Delayed action prolongs exposure to domestic violence and coercion. Creates secondary victimization, where legal remedies turn into procedural hurdles.

Way Forward

1. Strengthen existing safeguards (checklists, arrest guidelines, bail provisions).
2. Promote mediation and counselling through statutory family courts, not ad-hoc committees.
3. Ensure speedy FIR registration and investigation in line with Lalita Kumari.
4. Adopt victim-centric reforms—legal aid, safe shelters, psychological counselling, and witness protection.
5. Training for police and judiciary to balance false complaint risks with genuine victim protection.

Conclusion

Unchecked judicial activism risks “justice without law”. Sustainable reforms must respect statutory frameworks, ensuring safeguards against misuse while prioritizing women’s prompt access to justice and constitutional dignity.