MASCULINITY ON TRIAL: RETHINKING 498A WITH EMPATHY AND EQUITY
“Real change, enduring change, happens one step at a time. But real change must be just — justice for all, not justice for some.”
— Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, now retained as Sections 85 and 86 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (effective July 1, 2024), was enacted to protect women from cruelty in marriage—especially in cases involving dowry harassment. The provision remains cognizable and non-bailable, enabling immediate police intervention.
While it continues to be a crucial shield for many women, the absence of procedural safeguards has increasingly turned this legal protection into a potential weapon in certain cases. The tragic suicide of Atul Subash in Maharashtra—allegedly after a false 498A accusation—underscores this pressing concern. His story is one among many that highlight how unchecked misuse can cause irreversible damage.
Courts have repeatedly acknowledged this issue. In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand (2010) and Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014), the Supreme Court warned of exaggerated complaints and called for legislative reform. More recently, in Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana (2024), the Court urged Parliament to include procedural safeguards under the new BNS framework.
The misuse of 498A not only harms the falsely accused but also undermines the genuine struggles of real victims. Innocent family members—elderly parents, siblings—often find themselves entangled in criminal proceedings based on sweeping, unverified allegations. This delays justice for actual victims, congests the courts, and fuels distrust in the legal system.
The judiciary has suggested several corrective measures. In Rajesh Sharma v. State of UP (2018), the Supreme Court recommended the creation of Family Welfare Committees to screen complaints before FIRs are registered. This approach can reduce false accusations while protecting genuine victims.
Reforms to consider include: mandatory pre-inquiry before FIR registration; classifying first-time, non-violent cases as bailable and non-cognizable; penalizing knowingly false complaints; and promoting early-stage counseling and mediation. These would strike a fairer balance between protection and due process.
An important long-term discussion is whether laws addressing domestic cruelty should be gender-neutral. While women are statistically more vulnerable, men and individuals in same-sex relationships can also be victims of emotional and physical abuse. Any future reforms must remain sensitive to India’s social context, where patriarchal norms still prevail.
Section 498A was born out of a genuine need to protect vulnerable women. But like all powerful laws, it must evolve with time. Justice must not only shield the aggrieved—it must also protect the wrongly accused. The goal is not to dilute protections, but to ensure the law does not become an instrument of injustice.