Author: Saif Alam, A student at National Law University, Visakhapatnam
To the point
The evolving role of the judiciary has often gone beyond traditional adjudication, entering the realm of innovation through directives aimed at addressing pressing social concerns. The most recent example is the Supreme Court’s backing of the Allahabad High Court’s guidelines in Shivangi Bansal vs Sahib Bansal (July 22, 2025), establishing a “cooling period” prior to taking coercive action in cases involving matrimonial cruelty, which were previously governed by Section 498A IPC but are now governed by Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). While intended to curb the potential misuse of law, this judicial intervention has generated a heated debate. Despite their good intentions, critics contend that such orders run the risk of weakening a victim’s right to prompt protection and redress. Considering the statutory intent, this paper critically analyzes the implications of the judiciary’s experimental approach and investigates how courts find a delicate balance between the pursuit of substantive justice and individual liberty.
Use of Legal Jargon
Section 498A IPC, now governed by Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), was enacted as a penal safeguard to deter and punish matrimonial cruelty, encompassing physical, psychological, and emotional abuse within the domestic sphere. The judiciary has recently supported the adoption of a two-month “cooling period” and required review by Family Welfare Committees (FWCs) before the imposition of coercive measures. Courts have also implemented safeguards, such as “preliminary inquiry” prior to FIR registration, in response to misuse concerns, enshrining procedural restraints against arbitrary arrests. Concepts of “judicial innovation”, “procedural constraints”, “due process,” and “access to justice” thereby shape the discourse on whether experimental directives preserve liberty or erode substantive justice.
The Proof
The challenge of safeguarding matrimonial rights while avoiding legal misuse is evident in the evolving jurisprudence surrounding Section 498A IPC. Section 498A was among the top five “highest arrest” offenses, and it continued to rank in the top ten after that, according to the National Crime Records Bureau. Arrests decreased from 1,87,067 to 1,45,095 between 2015 and 2022. This change in statistics demonstrates the effectiveness of institutional and legal protections that preserve the accused’s freedom such as “preliminary inquiry” prior to filing a FIR and judicial review.
This balance has become even more difficult because of recent judicial innovation. To stop arbitrary arrests and pointless claims, the Supreme Court has granted a two-month “cooling period” and the requirement that complaints be referred to Family Welfare Committees (FWCs). This strategy, however, raises challenges because victims experience procedural delays after filing a formal complaint because no coercive action can be taken until the cooling-off period has passed. Critics contend that this framework constitutes judicial overreach because it exists outside the scope of legislation and the statutory framework governing criminal complaints.
Abstract
Judicial innovation has transformed the application of Section 498A IPC, especially through the recent endorsement of a “cooling period” and mandatory scrutiny by Family Welfare Committees (FWCs) following the Allahabad High Court’s experimental guidelines. Section 498A initially sought to safeguard women from abuse in marriage, but it was soon linked to numerous complaints and suspected abuse, leading to the implementation of protections like statutory checklists for arrest and preliminary inquiries prior to filing a formal complaint. The growing impact of institutional safeguards is demonstrated by NCRB statistics showing a sharp increase in registered cases while arrests are declining. Critical discussions about judicial overreach and the conflict between due process and expedited access to justice are sparked by these directives. A growing emphasis on finding the right balance between procedural justice and substantive victim protection can be seen in precedents such as Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P., Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., and Satender Kumar Antil v. C.B.I.
Case Laws
1. Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014)
– The Supreme Court’s decision in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar revolutionized procedural safeguards in Section 498A IPC cases by introducing the “principle of necessity” for arrests. The Court ruled that arrests must be supported by an urgent and objective necessity rather than by routine police action in response to widespread abuse and an increase in arbitrary custodial actions. The scope of the problem is highlighted by NCRB data, which shows that until reforms were put in place, Section 498A consistently ranked among the most common arrest offenses. To limit unchecked power, the ruling mandated that police officers carefully record the reasons for their arrests and issue a notice for appearance before proceeding. This directive resulted in a significant drop in arrests, from 1,87,067 in 2015 to 1,45,095 by 2022. The case has shaped the judiciary’s current position on claims of matrimonial cruelty and has become a standard for striking a balance between the accused’s liberty and avoiding excessive procedural action.
2. Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P. (2017) & Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar (2018)
– Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P. marked a controversial experiment in judicial innovation, as the Supreme Court directed the constitution of Family Welfare Committees (FWCs) aimed at filtering false complaints under Section 498A IPC. The Court also required a “cooling period” and the referral of complaints to FWCs prior to any coercive action. A three-judge panel, however, reversed these orders in Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar (2018), ruling that they were regressive and outside the purview of the judiciary. Instead, they upheld the criminal justice system’s supremacy and restored the victim’s right to prompt redress. The rollback highlighted that judicial innovation must be in line with statutory intent and constitutional protections, reflecting public dissatisfaction with institutional barriers. Together, these cases highlight the continuous battle to balance access to justice, due process, and preventing legal abuse.
3. Satender Kumar Antil v. C.B.I. (2022)
– In Satender Kumar Antil v. C.B.I., the Supreme Court fortified bail protections in criminal matters, with profound implications for Section 498A IPC cases involving matrimonial cruelty. The ruling is important because it advances the idea that bail should be granted to prevent needless imprisonment unless statutory arrest orders are broken. The Court emphasized the necessity of institutional checks that restrain police power, drawing on long-standing worries about procedural excess that have been brought to light in NCRB reports and earlier rulings. The decision reinforced previous guidelines by mandating adherence to statutory safeguards and checklists for police action.
Conclusion
Judicial innovation in Section 498A cases, particularly the introduction of a mandatory “cooling period” and Family Welfare Committees for complaint review, reflect a complex effort to balance preventing legal misuse with safeguarding victims’ rights as demonstrated by landmark judgments mentioned above, which introduced procedural safeguards and decreased abuse, these actions are intended to stop arbitrary arrests and false complaints. But as the Supreme Court’s reversal in Social Action Forum case highlights, critics contend that these procedural obstacles can impede victims’ access to prompt protection and postpone justice. The difficulty is in making sure that judicial actions adhere to legal requirements without putting victims through undue hardship. In cases of matrimonial cruelty, a nuanced strategy is necessary to ensure that victims are not denied timely and efficient legal redress while maintaining due process and liberty.
FAQS
1. What is the “cooling period” directive under Section 498A IPC?
The “cooling period” is a judicially mandated two-month waiting time before coercive action can be taken in complaints of matrimonial cruelty under Section 498A IPC, now governed by Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). It aims to reduce misuse by allowing time for mediation and review through Family Welfare Committees (FWCs) before arrest or FIR registration.
2. Why did the judiciary introduce Family Welfare Committees (FWCs)?
FWCs were introduced by the Supreme Court to filter frivolous or false complaints under Section 498A IPC by assessing cases before coercive legal measures. This was intended to protect the liberty of the accused and prevent arbitrary arrests.
3. What is the criticism of these judicial innovations?
Critics argue that procedural constraints like the cooling period and referral to FWCs create delays, weakening victims’ rights to prompt protection and access to justice. Some view this as judicial overreach, acting beyond statutory frameworks and adversely affecting substantive victim relief.
4. How have landmark cases shaped this landscape?
Cases such as Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar mandated necessity for arrests, reducing arbitrary detentions. Rajesh Sharma and Social Action Forum reflect contested judicial experiments on FWCs and cooling periods, illustrating the tension between procedural safeguards and victim protection. Satender Kumar Antil reinforced bail protections and police compliance with statutory checklists.
5. What challenge does the judiciary face in matrimonial cruelty cases today?
The key challenge is balancing institutional safeguards to prevent misuse with ensuring victims have swift access to justice. Judicial innovations must respect statutory intent and uphold due process without imposing excessive barriers on victims seeking timely redress.
Sources
1.https://www.pressreader.com/india/the-hindu-hyderabad-9WW7/20250917/281784225245428
2.https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/judicial-experimentalism-versus-the-right-to-justice/article70057963.ece
