Context: In Shivangi Bansal vs Sahib Bansal (2025), the Supreme Court endorsed the Allahabad High Court’s guidelines mandating a two-month cooling period and referral to Family Welfare Committees in Section 498A/85 BNS cases. This raises concerns of judicial experimentalism and delay in justice.
Relevance of the Topic: Mains: Basic idea of Judicial experimentalism and issues related to it.
Section 498A of the IPC
- Section 498A (now Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) was inserted in the Indian Penal Code to punish cruelty by the husband or his relatives towards a married woman.
- Cruelty includes physical or mental abuse, harassment for dowry, or conduct likely to drive the woman to suicide or harm her health.
- The offence is cognisable, allowing the police to register a case and investigate without prior approval of a magistrate.
- The offence is non-bailable, meaning bail is subject to judicial discretion and not a matter of right.
- The offence is non-compoundable, which means once a complaint is filed, it cannot be withdrawn by compromise between the parties.
- The punishment under Section 498A is imprisonment up to three years and a fine.
Safeguards to prevent misuse of Section 498A:
Over the years, courts have expressed concern about the increasing misuse of Section 498A, through false or exaggerated complaints, often leading to unnecessary arrests of husbands and their relatives. To address this, several measures were introduced:
- In the Lalita Kumari (2013) case, the Supreme Court placed matrimonial disputes in the category of preliminary inquiry before registration of an FIR.
- The recent criminal law reforms have also required that cases of cruelty by the husband undergo a preliminary inquiry before an FIR is registered.
- To check misuse through arbitrary arrests, the CrPC amendment of 2008 introduced the principle of necessity, mandating that arrests should only be made when justified.
- In the Arnesh Kumar (2014) case, the Supreme Court restricted unbridled police powers by mandating a checklist for arrest and introducing the practice of issuing a notice of appearance.
- In the Satender Kumar Antil (2022) case, the Court strengthened safeguards further by directing that bail should be granted if an arrest was made in violation of the Arnesh Kumar guidelines.
Recently in Shivangi Bansal vs Sahib Bansal (2025), the Supreme Court endorsed the guidelines by the Allahabad High Court to prevent the misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
The Allahabad High Court had introduced
- A two-month ‘cooling period’ for any coercive action after the registration of a first information report (FIR) or complaint to the magistrate.
- During the ‘cooling period’, the matter will be referred to a Family Welfare Committee (FWC).
Associated Concerns:
This ruling is a form of judicial experimentalism as it:
- Creates a new dispute-resolution mechanism (FWCs) and procedural bar (cooling period) outside the statutory framework.
- It interferes with the functional autonomy of police and magistrates.
- Delays the victim’s right to timely justice, and introduces quasi-judicial bodies without legislative sanction.
What is Judicial Experimentalism?
- Judicial experimentalism means the courts create rules or mechanisms not explicitly given in law, often to fill gaps or deal with pressing social concerns.
- It can sometimes be helpful, as seen in Vishaka vs State of Rajasthan (1997) where the Court laid down guidelines on workplace sexual harassment in the absence of a law. These guidelines later became the POSH Act, 2013.
- But it can also be problematic, as in the Shivangi Bansal case (2025) where such experiments weaken victims' access to justice and undermine statutory authorities.
Criticism of Judicial Experimentalism:
- It breaches separation of powers by encroaching upon the legislative and executive domain.
- It dilutes rule of law by introducing mechanisms beyond statutory mandate.
- It delays justice and erodes institutional autonomy of police and magistrates.
- It risks judicial overreach, where courts move from interpreting law to making policy, weakening democratic accountability.
The Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling on Section 498A reflects judicial experimentalism that goes beyond legislative intent. While misuse of the law has been addressed through existing safeguards, the introduction of cooling periods and Family Welfare Committees delays justice and undermines institutional autonomy.