Why in news?
In September 2025 the Supreme Court endorsed directions of the Allahabad High Court to introduce a two‑month “cooling off” period and referral to Family Welfare Committees for complaints under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (now Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita). The decision has generated debate about the judiciary stepping into law‑making and about the rights of women facing domestic cruelty.
Background
Section 498A was introduced in 1983 to protect married women from cruelty and dowry‑related harassment. Over the years there have been concerns about misuse of the provision and arbitrary arrests of husbands and family members. To prevent abuse, the Supreme Court previously issued guidelines for preliminary inquiry before arrest (Lalita Kumari case), emphasised the need for necessity and proportionality in arrests (2008 CrPC amendment and Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar), and strengthened bail procedures (Satender Kumar Antil case). “Judicial experimentalism” refers to courts going beyond statutory interpretation to craft novel remedies – for example issuing guidelines on sexual harassment at the workplace (Vishaka 1997), framing police reform directions (Prakash Singh 2006) and creating family welfare committees to screen false cases (Rajesh Sharma 2017).
Key features of the current ruling
- A mandatory two‑month “cooling period” during which no coercive action is to be taken and parties are expected to explore reconciliation.
- Complaints are referred to a Family Welfare Committee, a non‑statutory body that examines allegations and seeks a mediated settlement.
- The aim is to discourage frivolous complaints and reduce misuse of criminal law, while still allowing victims to pursue prosecution if settlement fails.
Concerns and criticisms
- Delay in justice: Women facing real violence may be forced to wait two months before police can act, undermining their safety and autonomy.
- Jurisdictional overreach: Family Welfare Committees lack statutory backing and may effectively suspend the operation of law, raising separation‑of‑powers concerns.
- Precedent: The Supreme Court itself had earlier struck down similar extra‑statutory committees in Social Action Forum v. Union of India, noting that such measures require legislative sanction.
- Psychological impact: Forcing survivors into mediation with abusive partners can prolong trauma and discourage reporting.
Arguments in favour
- The cooling period may prevent knee‑jerk arrests and give space for couples to reconsider divorce or separation.
- Referral to welfare committees could filter out false complaints and reduce the burden on police and courts.
- Encourages reconciliation in cases of minor disagreements and preserves the institution of marriage.
Way forward
- The legislature should clarify reconciliation mechanisms through amendments rather than rely on judicial innovations.
- Police and judiciary need regular training to handle domestic violence cases sensitively and to differentiate between genuine and malicious complaints.
- Fast‑track courts can ensure speedy trials so that victims are not left in limbo.
- Mediation should be voluntary, not mandatory; victims should have access to counselling and legal aid.
- Data‑driven analysis of the impact of such guidelines should inform any future reforms.