The Supreme Court has agreed to review judicial and administrative guidelines issued till date on FIR, arrest and grant of bail in cases lodged under Section 498-A (cruelty over dowry demands) — one of the most fiercely debated IPC provisions. The Supreme Court has agreed to review judicial and administrative guidelines issued till date on FIR, arrest and grant of bail in cases lodged under Section 498-A (cruelty over dowry demands) — one of the most fiercely debated IPC provisions.

Have the higher courts whittled down the severity of the anti-dowry harassment law by diluting mandatory FIR and arrest provisions, which now compel women to settle their cases rather than fighting it out?

The Supreme Court has agreed to review judicial and administrative guidelines issued till date on FIR, arrest and grant of bail in cases lodged under Section 498-A (cruelty over dowry demands) — one of the most fiercely debated IPC provisions.

Acting on a PIL, the Social Justice Bench, comprising Justices Madan B Lokur and Uday U Lalit, has sought responses from the ministries of Law and Justice and Women and Child Development on framing a uniform policy to regulate the legal procedure in anti-dowry harassment cases.

Last Friday, the bench issued notices to the ministries and sought their replies to a draft guideline, submitted by petitioner NGO ‘Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar’ (SAFMA). Apart from the NGO, the father of a girl who died last year after she was allegedly set on fire by her in-laws for dowry has also petitioned the court for stringent regulations.

According to National Crime Records Bureau data, a total of 24,771 dowry deaths have been reported in the country in past three years while 3.48 lakh cases have been registered under Section 498-A.

Filed through advocate Jyotika Kalra, the PIL seeks laying down model guidelines for police departments across the states so as to replace varying procedures being followed by them, in adherence to either the court orders or administrative directions.

The draft guidelines object to reducing the incidents of cruelty to mediation or a compromise because of unequal bargaining capacity of married women in India who fear societal pressures and financial instability.

Demanding re-enforcement of arrest provision which was diluted by a Supreme Court judgment in July 2014, the plea, argued by senior advocate Indu Malhotra, has said that police must record reasons for not arresting the husband and in-laws against whom serious charges of assault and harassment are levelled by a woman complainant.

Stating that the anti-dowry law was being misused, the 2014 judgment had restrained police of all states from “automatically” arresting the accused in dowry harassment cases where the maximum punishment is up to seven years in jail. It asked police to record reasons for arresting the accused in such cases.

But the PIL has said that arrest is the proper response in the overwhelming majority of complaints under Section 498-A, and that police will be liable for an explanation in choosing not to make arrests.

“The police should not consider the victim’s opposition to arrest of her husband and should emphasize to the victim, and to the accused as well, that the criminal action thus initiated is on behalf of the State, not the victim’s action,” stated the draft guidelines, adding no compromise or settlement should be permissible at police stations but only mediation centres should undertake this exercise.

It has sought a well-settled risk assessment analysis procedure and a special unit in police stations to ensure that a woman can make an informed choice regarding settlement of the case and not be constrained by issues of survival, safety, shelter and financial needs including the responsibility of young children.

📣 The Indian Express is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@indianexpress) and stay updated with the latest headlines

For all the latest India News, download Indian Express App.