Context and Background

In July 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered its ruling in Shivangi Bansal vs Sahib Bansal, which effectively upheld the suspension of arrests and coercive action under Section 498-A of the now-repealed Indian Penal Code (IPC), replaced by Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The verdict has sparked criticism for resting on flawed premises and for potentially endangering the criminal justice framework and the pursuit of gender equality. The decision is seen as a troubling development that could erode the protections originally designed to safeguard women from domestic cruelty.

Understanding Section 498-A and Its Intent

Section 498-A of the IPC, now codified as Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, was enacted in 1983 to address the growing incidence of domestic violence and dowry-related harassment. It penalises cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband or his relatives, prescribing a maximum sentence of three years along with a fine. Cruelty under this provision includes dowry harassment, physical or mental abuse that could lead a woman to suicide, or actions that harm her health or life. Originally introduced in response to widespread dowry deaths, the law was expanded to cover the broader spectrum of cruelty within marriage. The legislative intent acknowledged that extreme outcomes like suicides or murders were only a fraction of the problem, and that sustained abuse often went unpunished without such a provision.

The Supreme Court’s Endorsement of Temporary Protection from Arrest

The controversy stems from an earlier Allahabad High Court directive that imposed a two-month moratorium on arrests or coercive measures following the filing of a complaint under Section 498-A. During this period, cases would be referred to district-level family welfare committees. The Supreme Court has now endorsed this directive, granting blanket protection from arrest for two months, even in cases involving compelling evidence of violence. This endorsement was made in an individual case, without a comprehensive examination of its broader social consequences or adequate input from state authorities.

The implications of this ruling are significant. By suspending police action regardless of case specifics, the Court may inadvertently deter victims from reporting abuse and create a chilling effect on the police, who may be reluctant to pursue investigations with urgency. Critics argue that while mediation and reconciliation mechanisms are appropriate in civil family disputes such as child custody or divorce, they are fundamentally unsuitable in cases involving allegations of serious criminal violence. Penal law is meant to address harm to life, dignity, and bodily integrity, not to serve as a platform for forced compromise.

The ‘Misuse’ Narrative and Its Judicial Endorsement

A major factor shaping the Court’s decision is the longstanding narrative of alleged “misuse” of Section 498-A. This belief has been reiterated in various judicial pronouncements over the years. In Preeti Gupta vs State of Jharkhand (2010), the Court observed that many complaints lacked genuineness, while in Sushil Kumar Sharma vs Union of India (2005), it characterised misuse as “legal terrorism.” In Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar (2014), the Court introduced stringent guidelines discouraging automatic arrests, requiring police to assess necessity under Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

These judicial interventions have already had a deterrent effect on police responsiveness. However, the assumption that misuse is widespread remains unproven. Most cases presented before courts involve subjective and conflicting accounts, making it difficult to establish broad patterns. Courts are not equipped to override the legislative judgment that led to the enactment of Section 498-A, which was informed by deeply entrenched patterns of domestic abuse and the difficulty of securing justice for women in patriarchal settings.

The Misleading Use of Conviction Rates

A commonly cited argument against Section 498-A is the low conviction rate, which, according to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) 2022 data, stands at approximately 18%. However, such statistics can be misleading. This conviction rate is higher than that recorded for many other criminal offences. Furthermore, a low conviction rate does not necessarily indicate misuse. It more often reflects the complexity of proving domestic abuse that occurs in private spaces, systemic weaknesses in investigation, and the social and familial pressures that lead victims to compromise or withdraw complaints. The high burden of proof in criminal trials, compounded by the unwillingness of family members to testify, adds to the difficulty of securing convictions even in genuine cases.

Survey Evidence Challenges the Misuse Claim

Empirical evidence further challenges the idea of widespread misuse. While NCRB data for 2022 indicates that 1,34,506 cases were registered under Section 498-A, the National Family Health Survey-5 reveals a significant level of under-reporting of domestic violence in numerous states. Women''s rights organisations, such as Humsafar, suggest that any rise in reported cases is more likely the result of increased legal awareness and access to justice mechanisms than an actual increase in incidents. The existence of some false cases, though undeniable, does not undermine the law’s necessity. Every law is vulnerable to some degree of misuse, but the veracity of complaints can only be ascertained through proper investigation and legal due process.

By imposing a blanket suspension on arrests and effectively making the law dormant for an initial period, the Supreme Court has weakened a vital legal safeguard. Victims of domestic abuse are now more vulnerable, and their access to timely justice has been further restricted.

Conclusion: A Legal Precedent That Risks Undermining Justice

The Court’s approach in this case sets a worrying precedent by selectively applying enhanced scrutiny to certain criminal provisions. This disrupts the principle of uniformity within the criminal justice system and opens the door to potential systemic biases. It also contradicts the Court’s own earlier stance in Sushil Kumar Sharma (2005), where it upheld the constitutionality of Section 498-A and explicitly stated that the possibility of misuse is not a valid reason to invalidate legislation.

By endorsing a freeze on arrests without case-specific evaluations, the judiciary has inadvertently created a climate that may discourage victims from coming forward. It also sends a signal that protection under the law can be suspended without deep engagement with its social function. In doing so, the ruling undercuts decades of progress in recognising and addressing the gendered realities of domestic violence in India, ultimately narrowing the path to justice for countless women.