The tragic death by suicide of techie Atul Subhash has sparked outrage and renewed calls to scrap or dilute Section 498A of the IPC, a provision designed to protect women from marital cruelty. This backlash paints women as manipulative and vindictive, allegedly misusing the law to harm men.
However, the data tells a starkly different story: 32% of married women in India face spousal violence, yet only 14% of them seek help. Despite these grim statistics, the narrative of misuse dominates public discourse, overshadowing the law’s critical role in protecting the rights of countless women trapped in abusive situations.
The judiciary occupies a pivotal role in upholding justice, particularly for marginalised communities and vulnerable groups. Its contrasting approaches to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) and Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code reveal troubling inconsistencies. These disparities reflect deeper patriarchal biases and a societal backlash that prioritises protecting male privilege over safeguarding women’s rights.
In 2018, the Supreme Court, led by justice AK Goel, diluted a portion of the SC/ST Act, citing concerns about its misuse. The judgment allowed anticipatory bail for accused individuals and mandated preliminary police inquiries before registering cases. The rationale was that false complaints allegedly harmed innocent people. This verdict sparked nationwide protests, forcing the government to amend the law and the judiciary to overturn its earlier decision.
Contrast this with the treatment of Section 498A, a crucial provision against marital cruelty and dowry harassment. Critics routinely highlight its low conviction rates and alleged misuse, calling for its dilution. However, unlike the SC/ST Act, there has been no comparable judicial acknowledgement of the systemic barriers faced by women seeking justice — barriers that include patriarchal attitudes, victim-shaming, and prolonged legal processes. Instead, efforts to dilute 498A persist, leaving women vulnerable to domestic violence. The reluctance to robustly defend Section 498A mirrors a broader societal bias. When the SC/ST Act was diluted, Dalit and Adivasi communities mobilised en masse, confronting caste attitudes embedded in the system. Conversely, when 498A faces attacks, women’s rights groups lack equivalent societal support. This imbalance stems from entrenched gender norms. While caste-based oppression is increasingly recognised as a structural issue, domestic violence is still dismissed as a private matter. Women challenging abusive marriages are often accused of disrupting family harmony.
{{/usCountry}}Contrast this with the treatment of Section 498A, a crucial provision against marital cruelty and dowry harassment. Critics routinely highlight its low conviction rates and alleged misuse, calling for its dilution. However, unlike the SC/ST Act, there has been no comparable judicial acknowledgement of the systemic barriers faced by women seeking justice — barriers that include patriarchal attitudes, victim-shaming, and prolonged legal processes. Instead, efforts to dilute 498A persist, leaving women vulnerable to domestic violence. The reluctance to robustly defend Section 498A mirrors a broader societal bias. When the SC/ST Act was diluted, Dalit and Adivasi communities mobilised en masse, confronting caste attitudes embedded in the system. Conversely, when 498A faces attacks, women’s rights groups lack equivalent societal support. This imbalance stems from entrenched gender norms. While caste-based oppression is increasingly recognised as a structural issue, domestic violence is still dismissed as a private matter. Women challenging abusive marriages are often accused of disrupting family harmony.
{{/usCountry}}Allegations of misuse plague both laws, but the responses differ starkly. In the case of the SC/ST Act, the judiciary ultimately recognised that misuse by a few cannot justify weakening protections for the many. Yet, this principle is often overlooked when it comes to Section 498A. Critics point to low conviction rates, ignoring the systemic hurdles faced by women.
An overwhelming majority of domestic violence victims never file complaints due to fear of stigma, retaliation, or familial pressure. Protracted trials exhaust victims emotionally and financially, forcing many to abandon cases. Coercion and threats from perpetrators deter women from pursuing justice. Witnesses turn hostile and corruption leads to the destruction of evidence or poor investigation of the case. The narrative of misuse is amplified by patriarchal structures that sympathise with accused men rather than with abused women.
Domestic violence is not a private grievance — it is a manifestation of systemic inequality. Weakening Section 498A would embolden abusers and erode women’s trust in the legal system.
AL Sharada is trustee, Population First.The views expressed are personal