Context:

• In July 2025, in Shivangi Bansal vs Sahib Bansal, the Supreme Court upheld Allahabad High Court’s 2022 guidelines in Mukesh Bansal vs State of U.P. to curb misuse of Section 498A IPC (now Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita).
• The guidelines mandate a two-month ‘cooling period’ after an FIR or complaint, during which cases are referred to a Family Welfare Committee.
• However, critics argue this delays victims’ access to justice and undermines the autonomy of criminal justice agencies.
• This article highlights the Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling in Shivangi Bansal vs Sahib Bansal, its endorsement of a ‘cooling period’ for Section 498A cases, the statutory and judicial safeguards already in place, and why critics argue the ruling undermines victims’ timely access to justice.

The Basis of Safeguards under Section 498A

• Section 498A was enacted to punish cruelty against women in matrimonial settings, but courts have noted its misuse through frivolous FIRs and indiscriminate arrests.
• To address this, safeguards were introduced. In Lalita Kumari, the Supreme Court placed matrimonial disputes under ‘preliminary inquiry’ before FIR registration, a principle later reinforced in recent criminal law reforms.
• Further, to curb arbitrary arrests, two measures were established:
  • the 2008 CrPC amendment, which mandated the ‘principle of necessity’ in arrests; and
    • The principle of necessity in arrests dictates that an arrest should only be made when it is absolutely necessary to do so.
  • the Supreme Court’s ruling in Arnesh Kumar (2014), which required police to follow a checklist and issue a ‘notice for appearance’ instead of immediate arrests.
• Later, in Satender Kumar Antil (2022), the Court directed that arrests made in violation of these safeguards must lead to bail.
• Together, these measures aim to balance protection for women with safeguards against misuse.

Section 498A as an ‘Arrest Offence’

• The NCRB report Crimes in India shows Section 498A was among the top five “highest arrest” offences until 2016, later moving to the top 10.
• While cases rose from 1,13,403 in 2015 to 1,40,019 in 2022, arrests declined from 1,87,067 to 1,45,095.
• This reflected the effect of statutory and judicial safeguards, which balanced protecting the accused’s liberty without undermining victims’ access to justice.

Concerns Over the ‘Cooling Period’

• The recent introduction of a two-month “cooling period” with referral to a Family Welfare Committee (FWC) may appear ambitious but lacks statutory authority and jurisdictional clarity.
• It delays action even after FIRs are filed, worsening the victim’s plight and undermining prompt justice.
• This approach mirrors the Supreme Court’s Rajesh Sharma (2017) ruling, which mandated FWCs and delayed proceedings for a month.
• These directions were criticised as regressive and beyond judicial competence, leading to their reversal in Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar (2018).
• That three-judge Bench restored victims’ immediate access to justice and reaffirmed the role of criminal justice agencies in handling matrimonial cruelty cases.

Need to Revisit the Ruling

• The Supreme Court must reconsider its ruling, as concerns over misuse of Section 498A and police excesses have already been addressed through statutory amendments and judicial safeguards.
• Forwarding complaints to Family Welfare Committees goes beyond legislative intent, undermines the autonomy of criminal justice agencies, and most importantly, delays and weakens the victim’s access to timely justice.