XII. SOCIAL ACTION FORUM FOR MANAV ADHIKAR V UOI [REVIEW PETITION FOR RAJESH SHARMA] Flashcards
(5 cards)
XII. SOCIAL ACTION FORUM FOR MANAV ADHIKAR V UOI [REVIEW PETITION FOR RAJESH SHARMA] (FACTS)
The petitioners, comprising social activists and legal rights groups, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court, highlighting serious concerns about both the misuse and under-enforcement of Section 498-A. On the one hand, they emphasised that hundreds of women face horrific violence and abuse in their marital homes. On the other hand, they acknowledged that there had been allegations of misuse by complainants, particularly in urban areas, where well-educated women were accused of misusing the provision as a tool for vengeance.
They argued that:
1. The absence of a uniform system of registering FIRs and investigating complaints has led to inconsistencies in enforcement.
2. Police officers were often hesitant to arrest accused persons or even file FIRs, citing recent Supreme Court rulings.
3. The court decisions had inadvertently diluted the strength and deterrent effect of Section 498-A by creating procedural bottlenecks that discouraged police action.
4. Many complaints were dismissed without proper investigation unless there was clear physical violence, thereby ignoring instances of mental cruelty, which also fall under the definition of “cruelty” in Section 498-A.
The petitioners specifically challenged the 2017 Supreme Court judgment in Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P., which introduced guidelines to prevent the misuse of Section 498-A, including the creation of Family Welfare Committees (FWCs) in every district. These FWCs, composed of social workers and volunteers, were directed to screen all complaints under Section 498-A before any arrest could be made. The petitioners contended that these FWCs were extra-judicial bodies lacking any legal foundation under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and could delay justice for genuine victims.
XII. SOCIAL ACTION FORUM FOR MANAV ADHIKAR V UOI [REVIEW PETITION FOR RAJESH SHARMA] (a. Petitioners’ Contentions)
The petitioners strongly argued that the perception of widespread misuse of Section 498-A IPC lacked a factual foundation. They emphasised that no credible statistical data had been presented to justify diluting a legal provision intended to protect married women from cruelty and abuse. Courts, according to the petitioners, were acting on assumptions and anecdotal narratives, which weakened the legal safeguards originally envisioned by the legislature.
Further, the petitioners contended that due to landmark rulings such as Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P. and Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, police officers frequently refused to register FIRs or make arrests, even when serious complaints of abuse were made.
This reluctance undermined the cognizable and non-bailable nature of the offence, thus denying justice to women in need of immediate protection.
The petitioners also highlighted the disparities between rural and urban settings, stating that women in rural areas were particularly disadvantaged due to a lack of awareness, limited access to legal recourse, and the absence of any structured monitoring mechanism. They claimed that the guidelines issued in Rajesh Sharma, especially those mandating a Family Welfare Committee (FWC) report before an arrest, paralysed the legal protection mechanism and led to inordinate delays in justice.
Additionally, they challenged the rationale that some educated women allegedly misused Section 498-A. They argued that even if a small segment of women might exploit the law, this could not justify weakening protections for the vast majority, especially the poor and marginalised. Instead, the focus should be on better enforcement, awareness, and training rather than restrictive procedural barriers.
XII. SOCIAL ACTION FORUM FOR MANAV ADHIKAR V UOI [REVIEW PETITION FOR RAJESH SHARMA] (b. Amicus Curiae’s Submissions)
The Court-appointed Amicus Curiae, Senior Advocate V. Shekhar, presented a critical legal analysis of the Rajesh Sharma guidelines. He submitted that the Family Welfare Committees (FWCs) introduced by that judgment were extra-judicial bodies without any basis in the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Delegating investigative or adjudicatory functions to such committees, composed of laypersons or volunteers, infringed upon the statutory functions of the police and magistracy.
He further argued that the instruction to avoid arrests until FWC reports were submitted amounted to judicial overreach, effectively curbing police powers granted under Sections 41 and 41-A of CrPC. He stressed that the judiciary cannot modify statutory procedures through interpretation or policy mandates.
The Amicus Curiae also criticised the direction that lower courts or District Judges could dispose of cases under Section 498-A IPC in instances of settlement. He clarified that only the High Courts, under their inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, could quash proceedings in non-compoundable offences like those under Section 498-A IPC.
Finally, he raised concerns about the overreach of other directions such as avoiding impounding of passports or issuance of Red Corner Notices, and routinely excusing personal appearances of the accused. He stated that these issues were fact-sensitive and should be left to the judicial discretion of trial courts rather than being governed by blanket rules.
XII. SOCIAL ACTION FORUM FOR MANAV ADHIKAR V UOI [REVIEW PETITION FOR RAJESH SHARMA] (c. Judgement)
The Supreme Court, in its final ruling, held that the directions issued in the Rajesh Sharma case regarding the creation and functioning of Family Welfare Committees were invalid and beyond judicial competence. The Court ruled that such directives, particularly giving FWCs the authority to delay arrests, encroached upon legislative functions and were not supported by any legal statute, especially not the CrPC.
Instead, the Court emphasized the importance of following existing safeguards under Section 41 and 41-A CrPC, as earlier highlighted in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar. These sections require police to justify arrests, and to record reasons for both arrest and non-arrest, especially in offences where the punishment is less than seven years.
The Court clarified that any quashing of criminal proceedings in non-compoundable offences, such as those under Section 498-A IPC, can only be done by High Courts under Section 482 CrPC. This reaffirmed the principle laid down in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, where the scope and conditions for quashing proceedings based on mutual settlement were thoroughly explained.
However, the Court did uphold some directions from the Rajesh Sharma ruling. These included:
* Guidelines related to bail (19.iv): Bail should not be denied solely because dowry items are not recovered, as long as other safeguards (such as maintenance rights) are ensured.
* Red Corner Notices (19.v): Such notices for accused living abroad should not be issued routinely and must be justified case-by-case basis.
* Directions on appearance exemptions (19.vi and 19.vii): Trial courts may permit exemption from personal appearance or allow video conferencing, depending on the facts and stage of the trial.
Lastly, the Court directed that all Investigating Officers handling Section 498-A cases should undergo rigorous training on arrest protocols to ensure just and fair investigation in line with judicial precedents such as Joginder Kumar, D.K. Basu, Lalita Kumari, and Arnesh Kumar.
XII. SOCIAL ACTION FORUM FOR MANAV ADHIKAR V UOI [REVIEW PETITION FOR RAJESH SHARMA] d. Analysis
This landmark judgment marks a crucial course correction in the judicial approach to Section 498-A IPC, restoring the balance between safeguarding women’s rights and preventing procedural abuse. The Supreme Court reiterated that while the judiciary can interpret and guide the implementation of laws, it must not encroach upon the legislature’s domain by creating new institutions or modifying statutory procedures without explicit legal backing.
The decision effectively restores the primacy of the CrPC, ensuring that investigation, arrest, and prosecution are carried out strictly within the procedural boundaries laid down by the law. By invalidating the concept of Family Welfare Committees, the Court upheld the principle that justice must not be delayed by extralegal filters, particularly in cases involving domestic abuse and violence.
Simultaneously, the judgment acknowledges the reality of misuse and encourages cautious and well-documented arrests, aligning with constitutional protections of liberty and dignity. It ensures that the rights of accused persons—often elderly parents or distant relatives—are not sacrificed to automatic procedures, while also not weakening the shield available to genuine victims of marital cruelty.
