Published: October 14, 2025
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), introduced in 1983, was heralded as a shield for women against domestic cruelty and dowry related harassment. However, over the decades, it has become a lightning rod for controversy, sparking heated debates about its intent, application, and alleged misuse. As India grapples with evolving gender dynamics and legal reforms, the transition to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023: which replaced the IPC on July 1, 2024, has brought Section 498A into sharper focus. This article dives into the heart of the debate, exploring the law’s origins, its impact, the changes under the new BNS regime, and the calls for further reform.
The Genesis of Section 498A
Enacted through the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983, Section 498A was a response to the alarming rise in dowry deaths and domestic violence cases in India. The provision criminalizes cruelty by a husband or his relatives toward a married woman, with penalties including imprisonment for up to three years and a fine. The law defines "cruelty" broadly, encompassing physical and mental harm, as well as harassment for dowry.
The intent was clear: to empower women in a patriarchal society where dowry demands and domestic abuse were rampant. By making 498A a non-bailable, cognizable offense, the law aimed to ensure swift action against perpetrators, allowing police to arrest without a warrant and courts to deny bail easily. For many women, it became a vital tool to seek justice in cases of abuse, offering legal recourse in a society where familial pressures often silenced victims.
The Flip Side: Allegations of Misuse
While Section 498A was designed to protect, its broad language and stringent provisions have led to accusations of rampant misuse. Critics argue that the law’s vague definition of "cruelty" and lack of evidence thresholds make it prone to exploitation. Complaints under 498A often name not just the husband but his entire family, including elderly parents and distant relatives, leading to claims of vendetta driven litigation.
Data from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) highlights the scale of 498A cases. In 2022, over 1.2 lakh cases were registered, with a conviction rate of just 14.7%. This low conviction rate fuels arguments that many cases are frivolous or filed to settle personal scores. Men’s rights activists and legal scholars point to instances where 498A complaints are used as leverage in marital disputes, alimony negotiations, or to pressure husbands into compliance. The Supreme Court, in cases like Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014), acknowledged the potential for misuse, noting that the provision is sometimes wielded as a "weapon rather than a shield."
The impact of alleged misuse is profound. Families report emotional and financial devastation from prolonged litigation, social stigma, and arrests of innocent relatives. The non bailable nature of the offense often leads to immediate arrests, even before investigations are complete, raising questions about due process and fairness.
The Transition to Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita: What Changed (or Didn't)?
With the enactment of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), effective from July 1, 2024, India's criminal justice framework underwent a seismic shift, replacing the colonial-era IPC with a more "Indianized" code aimed at modernizing laws while addressing contemporary issues. Section 498A has been restructured but largely retained in substance under Sections 85 and 86 of the BNS.
Section 85 (Cruelty by Husband or Relatives): This mirrors the core of Section 498A, criminalizing any act by a husband or his relatives that subjects a married woman to cruelty. Punishment remains imprisonment up to three years and a fine, maintaining the non-bailable and cognizable status. No substantive alterations were made to the scope, penalties, or procedural safeguards like the Arnesh Kumar guidelines, which continue to apply under the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, the successor to the CrPC.
Section 86 (Explanation of Cruelty): The key structural change is here. What was previously an "Explanation" appended to Section 498A in the IPC has been elevated to a standalone provision. It explicitly defines "cruelty" as (a) any willful conduct likely to drive a woman to suicide or grave injury, or (b) harassment to coerce her or her relatives into meeting unlawful dowry demands. This separation aims for clarity but does not alter the definition or intent.
In essence, the BNS provisions are a verbatim reproduction of Section 498A, with no dilution of its protective edge or curbs on misuse as of October 2025. The restructuring reflects broader BNS goals of reorganization, consolidating offenses relating to marriage under Chapter V (Sections 80–87) but critics decry it as "old wine in a new bottle," perpetuating the same vulnerabilities.
Judicial Interventions and Calls for Reform
The judiciary has long attempted to address these concerns through landmark rulings, and the BNS transition has amplified calls for action. In Arnesh Kumar (2014), the Supreme Court mandated preliminary investigations before arrests in 498A cases and urged caution in bail matters, guidelines that seamlessly carry over to Sections 85/86. The Rajesh Sharma v. State (2017) guidelines, including family welfare committees, were partially rolled back in Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar v. Union of India (2018) to safeguard victims.
More recently, in Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana (May 2024), the Supreme Court quashed a 498A case amid misuse concerns and urged Parliament to amend Sections 85 and 86 before full implementation, emphasizing "pragmatic realities" like frivolous complaints. As of now, no amendments have been enacted, leaving the provisions unchanged and fueling ongoing litigation under the new codes.
Recent discourse on X reflects polarized frustration post BNS rollout. Women's rights groups warn that tampering with Sections 85/86 could endanger victims, while men's advocates demand safeguards against false accusations. Legal experts propose reforms like stricter evidence norms, mandatory mediation, or penalties for perjury, ideas echoed in Supreme Court observations but yet to materialize.
The Path Forward: Striking a Balance
Sections 85 and 86 of the BNS embody India's ongoing struggle to balance gender justice with legal equity. For every protected woman, there's a family alleging persecution. With no substantive changes from the IPC era, the new regime inherits the same tensions. Potential solutions include:
Clearer Definitions: Refining "cruelty" in Section 86 to minimize ambiguity.
Mandatory Mediation: Integrating pre filing counseling under BNSS to weed out baseless claims.
Penalties for Misuse: Deterrents for false complaints, balanced against victim protections.
Gender Neutral Expansion: Broadening domestic violence laws to cover all genders, aligning with evolving norms.
As India's legal evolution continues, Sections 85/86 remain a flashpoint, celebrated for empowerment yet criticized for overreach. Their future depends on legislative responsiveness to judicial nudges, ensuring justice shields without becoming a sword.
0 Comments