The Supreme Court has raised concerns over the misuse of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), a provision designed to protect women from cruelty in their marital homes, commonly known as the anti-dowry law. The court emphasised the need for judicial caution in recognising cases of "over implication" and urged courts to avoid accepting exaggerated claims without proper scrutiny.

The court’s observations came while overturning a conviction under Section 498-A, which has now been replaced by Section 86 in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), effective from July 1. The Supreme Court stressed the importance of a balanced approach to avoid wrongful convictions. The bench of justices CT Ravikumar and PV Sanjay Kumar referred to the court’s 2010 ruling in Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand, which had warned about the growing tendency to misuse Section 498-A. "Exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints and the tendency of over implication is also reflected in a large number of cases," the court had said.

Building on that 2010 judgment, the bench noted that many individuals who had little or no involvement in the alleged offense are being dragged into criminal trials, leading to unnecessary hardship and reputational damage. “We are of the view that in view of such circumstances, the courts have to be careful to identify instances of over implication and to avert the suffering of ignominy and inexpiable consequences, by such persons,” the judgment stated.

This ruling is a reminder that while the law against cruelty in marriage is essential to protect women, its misuse can lead to injustice. In the specific case at hand, the petitioner was convicted under Section 498-A, which criminalises cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a married woman. The conviction led to the loss of the petitioner’s job and imprisonment for several months. However, upon closer inspection, the Supreme Court found no direct evidence linking the petitioner to any act of cruelty. The conviction appeared to be based solely on the fact that he was related to the prime accused, the husband of the deceased woman, rather than any substantial proof of his involvement. The court noted that although the petitioner was married to the sister of the deceased’s husband, he had minimal interaction with the victim, and no concrete evidence connected him to the alleged mistreatment.

The judgment highlighted that accusations of cruelty should not automatically result in convictions without proper evidence, as this can lead to "ignominy and inexpiable consequences" for those falsely accused. The court urged the judiciary to exercise restraint and avoid rushing to convictions based on weak or general allegations.

The Supreme Court's concerns align with previous rulings aimed at preventing the misuse of Section 498-A. In Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2014), the court took a firm stand against wrongful arrests and detentions based on unsubstantiated complaints under this section, stressing that arrests should only be made after a thorough investigation. The court also recommended that arrest in such cases should not be automatic to avoid the harassment of innocent people.

In another case, Rajesh Sharma & Ors vs. State of UP (2017), the court suggested forming family welfare committees to review complaints before police action is taken, in an effort to curb the filing of false cases. This move was aimed at reducing the number of wrongful accusations made under the guise of dowry or cruelty.

Further, in Satender Kumar Antil (2022), the Supreme Court laid out guidelines requiring police officers to record their reasons in writing before arresting accused individuals in cases where the offense is punishable by imprisonment of less than seven years. It also recommended issuing proper notices before questioning suspects and mandated that bail applications in such cases be disposed of quickly. The court is currently monitoring compliance with these directives and has asked the Union government to inform it whether a new law on bail is being considered, as it pushes for fairness in the criminal justice system to prevent unnecessary arrests.

Men’s rights activist Deepika Narayan Bhardwaj expressed concern that many men have had to spend the best years of their lives proving their innocence in false cases. “In this case too, the only crime of a man was to be a relative of the husband. And he had to come all the way to the Supreme Court to prove his innocence. I really feel it’s high time that courts punish false accusers who are as dangerous to society as real perpetrators. Section 498-A has destroyed so many lives and is a chief reason for generating mistrust in the institution of marriage,” Bhardwaj said.