PYQ Relevance[UPSC 2024] Starting from inventing the ‘basic structure’ doctrine, the judiciary has played a highly proactive role in ensuring that India develops into a thriving democracy. In light of the statement, evaluate the role played by judicial activism in achieving the ideals of democracy. Linkage: The recent “cooling period” ruling in Shivangi Bansal (2025) shows the judiciary’s proactive, sometimes overreaching, role in experimenting with safeguards beyond legislative intent. While judicial activism has often upheld democracy by protecting rights (e.g., Kesavananda Bharati, Arnesh Kumar), such interventions can also compromise access to justice. Thus, the case illustrates both the potential and pitfalls of judicial activism in strengthening democratic ideals. |
Mentor’s Comment
The Supreme Court’s recent endorsement of the Allahabad High Court’s guidelines introducing a “cooling period” before action in matrimonial cruelty cases (formerly Section 498A IPC, now Section 85 BNS) has sparked a heated debate. While the move aims to check misuse of law, critics argue it undermines a victim’s right to prompt justice. This article analyses the issue through the lens of judicial experimentalism, statutory intent, and the balance between liberty and justice, an important discussion for UPSC aspirants studying the interface of law, rights, and institutional reforms.
Introduction
Section 498A IPC was enacted to protect women from cruelty in matrimonial settings. However, fears of its misuse led courts and lawmakers to build safeguards against arbitrary arrests and frivolous cases. The recent Supreme Court ruling in Shivangi Bansal vs Sahib Bansal (2025) has endorsed a two-month “cooling period” and referral to Family Welfare Committees (FWCs) before action is taken on complaints. While it echoes earlier judicial experiments, critics highlight that such directions compromise victims’ right to timely justice and extend judicial power beyond legislative intent.
Judicial Experimentalism Versus Right to Justice
Why is this ruling in the news?
The ruling is significant because, for the first time since the rollback of Rajesh Sharma guidelines in 2018, the Supreme Court has revived the idea of FWCs and delayed coercive action through a “cooling period.” This marks a sharp contrast with previous judicial positions that upheld victims’ right to prompt redressal. The problem is big: over 1.4 lakh cases registered under Section 498A in 2022 (NCRB) yet with declining arrests, showing safeguards were already in place. Introducing new hurdles raises questions on judicial overreach and justice delivery.
Why was Section 498A enacted?
- Objective: Punish cruelty against women in matrimonial homes.
- Protection intent: Safeguard women from physical, mental, and emotional abuse by husband and family.
- Concerns of misuse: Courts acknowledged misuse through false FIRs and arrests, which led to checks and procedural safeguards.
What safeguards already existed against misuse?
- Lalita Kumari (2013): Classified matrimonial disputes under ‘preliminary inquiry’ before FIR registration.
- CrPC amendment (2008): Introduced the ‘principle of necessity’ in arrests.
- Arnesh Kumar (2014): Checklist for police; mandatory notice for appearance before arrest.
- Satender Kumar Antil (2022): Strengthened protection by ensuring bail if arrest directions were violated.
- Impact: NCRB shows while cases increased (1,13,403 in 2015 → 1,40,019 in 2022), arrests fell (1,87,067 → 1,45,095).
How does the “cooling period” affect justice delivery?
- Delay in action: Victims must wait two months before any coercive step is taken.
- Denial of prompt redressal: Even after FIR, police cannot act, worsening victim’s plight.
- Institutional overreach: FWCs lack statutory backing, leading to ambiguity about their jurisdiction and powers.
- Historical lesson: Similar FWC directions in Rajesh Sharma (2017) were termed “regressive” and rolled back by Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar (2018).
What does this mean for judicial experimentalism?
- Judicial innovation vs legislative intent: Experimentation may be progressive but must not override statutory design.
- Checks already in place: With safeguards from CrPC amendments, Arnesh Kumar and Satender Kumar Antil, additional hurdles appear unnecessary.
- Risk of regressive rollback: Echoes earlier failed experiments that compromised women’s access to justice.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s endorsement of the Allahabad High Court’s “cooling period” in Section 498A cases reflects judicial anxiety over misuse of law but risks undermining victim protection, the very intent of the provision. With sufficient safeguards already in place, the ruling revives debates on judicial overreach and calls for revisiting its implications. Justice must balance the liberty of the accused with the victim’s right to immediate redressal, without diluting either.
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
