Evolution:
During 1980s, death of women due to unmet dowry demands started rising steadily. As a consequence of which several organizations, all over the country, pressed and asked the then government to make such laws which will be able to provide protection to women against such harassment. The objective, however, was to provide the state with a legal right to interfere in the matter quickly and thus prevent the murders due to such reasons. The intense agitation led to substantial amendments in the IPC, the Dowry Prohibition Act and the Indian Evidence Act in order to achieve the sought objective. However, the most significant amendment was made by way of introducing Section 498A in the IPC by Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act of 1983 (Act No. 46 of 1983).
Analysis:
The concerned section depicts to deal with the following four kinds of cruelty-
- Any conduct that is likely to force a woman to commit suicide,
- Any conduct that is likely to cause grave injury to the life, limb or health of the woman,
- Harassment with the purpose of forcing the woman or her relatives to give some property,
or - Harassment because the woman or her relatives are either unable to yield to the demand for more money or do not give some share of the property.
Section 498A, in legal terms, is a criminal offence, which is cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable:
- Cognizable: It is mandatory under the law for the police to register and investigate a cognizable offence.
- Non-Bailable: A non-bailable offence means that the magistrate has the power to refuse bail and remand a person to judicial or police custody.
- Non-Compoundable: A non-compoundable offence cannot be withdrawn by the petitioner. However, the state of Andhra Pradesh is an exception where 498A is a compoundable offence.
However, the formulated law has been detected to have certain inherent loopholes and lacunas for abuse and exploitation. The apex Court, itself, condemned section 498A in the case of Sushil Kumar Sharma v Union of India, Writ petition(C) no.141 of 2005, as “Legal Terrorism”, nevertheless, it upheld the constitutional validity of section 498A of the IPC.