 "Cannot do away with anti-dowry law, but need to fine-tune it: Pinky Anand")
The Supreme Court recently ruled that the police cannot "automatically" arrest the accused under the anti-dowry law. According to National Crime Records Bureau, only 15 per cent of those arrested for dowry offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code in 2012 were convicted. Senior advocate Pinky Anand talks to Ranjita Ganesan about the apex court's directive to check misuse of the anti-dowry law and the significance of the ruling
Why did the Supreme Court feel the need to issue these guidelines?
The abuse of dowry laws led to unrest and a movement to question the changing fabric of society. There is also the fact that the existing law was one-sided, though justifiably so. But when one side is being protected, the other feels wronged. In the past, you had a lot of arrests, some genuine and others not so. When innocent people are punished, you cannot compensate them for the kind of humiliation, trauma and agony they face. You cannot do away with the law but you need to fine-tune it. So it was expected that the court would use its supervisory powers and try to mitigate the ill-use of the law.
From time to time there have been some cases when a situation was manufactured, like pulling up a grandfather of 84 years or a minor sister-in-law. At times, this law is used as a weapon when you want to complain against other members of the family and put pressure on them. There are three kinds of cases here: genuine, malafide and exaggerated (which are justified but exaggerated). The third category is unfortunately the outcome of the fact that when registering a case, the police do not accept that cruelty has taken place unless there is physical cruelty or aggravation. The system must become more sensitive to what constitutes domestic violence and cruelty. Why would there be a need to exaggerate if the system worked? While the directive will work to curb misuse, it is a fact that domestic violence and cruelty are rampant and need to be addressed.
Will the directive be beneficial or will it simply soften a law seen by many as the only one with teeth to fight dowry-related violence?
There is an aggrieved and destitute cross-section of women in society, without income and resources to manage their lives and without anyone to depend on. A law that addresses them exists in principle but not in practice. In an ideal society, you would not need a harsh law at all. So, it is a bit of a danger zone to have a criminal law that does not have teeth. In the Indian context, teeth is not about conviction as much as arrest. These are not crimes like theft or murder. This section of perpetrators is actually terrified of being arrested. If you don't have arrests, often you don't have any resolution.
Ranjana Kumari of the Centre for Social Research said that if the law is being misused, then the law enforcement agencies need to be blamed and not women in society. What are your views on this?
It is a fact that investigating agencies do not perform their functions in accordance with law and in a time-bound manner. So you tend to try and bend the system. Exaggerations are a consequence of the non-performance of authorities. Even in general terms in criminal law, the problem lies in investigation. For instance, in how many cases is dowry returned to the girl without her having to file a complaint. The use of the law is as important as its misuse and that should not be diluted.
The judge also reminded the authorities to follow a nine-point checklist before a dowry complaint is registered. How important is this?
The judgment is important in that it asks agencies to check the parameters that exist under Section 41 of the law. It does soften the law somewhat but if properly implemented, this will do. The agencies need to make sure the person cooperates with the investigation, does not run away and does not commit the offence again.
Some, including groups that support men fighting dowry cases, have called it a landmark directive. What is your view?
It is a reinforcement of due process and it will be lauded by people who are being challenged or being charged. It is definitely a landmark because you cannot have a law that addresses one cross-section of society while ignoring the other.
Why did the Supreme Court feel the need to issue these guidelines?
The abuse of dowry laws led to unrest and a movement to question the changing fabric of society. There is also the fact that the existing law was one-sided, though justifiably so. But when one side is being protected, the other feels wronged. In the past, you had a lot of arrests, some genuine and others not so. When innocent people are punished, you cannot compensate them for the kind of humiliation, trauma and agony they face. You cannot do away with the law but you need to fine-tune it. So it was expected that the court would use its supervisory powers and try to mitigate the ill-use of the law.
More From This Section
Is the anti-dowry law sometimes used as a weapon rather than a shield by disgruntled wives?
From time to time there have been some cases when a situation was manufactured, like pulling up a grandfather of 84 years or a minor sister-in-law. At times, this law is used as a weapon when you want to complain against other members of the family and put pressure on them. There are three kinds of cases here: genuine, malafide and exaggerated (which are justified but exaggerated). The third category is unfortunately the outcome of the fact that when registering a case, the police do not accept that cruelty has taken place unless there is physical cruelty or aggravation. The system must become more sensitive to what constitutes domestic violence and cruelty. Why would there be a need to exaggerate if the system worked? While the directive will work to curb misuse, it is a fact that domestic violence and cruelty are rampant and need to be addressed.
Will the directive be beneficial or will it simply soften a law seen by many as the only one with teeth to fight dowry-related violence?
There is an aggrieved and destitute cross-section of women in society, without income and resources to manage their lives and without anyone to depend on. A law that addresses them exists in principle but not in practice. In an ideal society, you would not need a harsh law at all. So, it is a bit of a danger zone to have a criminal law that does not have teeth. In the Indian context, teeth is not about conviction as much as arrest. These are not crimes like theft or murder. This section of perpetrators is actually terrified of being arrested. If you don't have arrests, often you don't have any resolution.
Ranjana Kumari of the Centre for Social Research said that if the law is being misused, then the law enforcement agencies need to be blamed and not women in society. What are your views on this?
It is a fact that investigating agencies do not perform their functions in accordance with law and in a time-bound manner. So you tend to try and bend the system. Exaggerations are a consequence of the non-performance of authorities. Even in general terms in criminal law, the problem lies in investigation. For instance, in how many cases is dowry returned to the girl without her having to file a complaint. The use of the law is as important as its misuse and that should not be diluted.
The judge also reminded the authorities to follow a nine-point checklist before a dowry complaint is registered. How important is this?
The judgment is important in that it asks agencies to check the parameters that exist under Section 41 of the law. It does soften the law somewhat but if properly implemented, this will do. The agencies need to make sure the person cooperates with the investigation, does not run away and does not commit the offence again.
Some, including groups that support men fighting dowry cases, have called it a landmark directive. What is your view?
It is a reinforcement of due process and it will be lauded by people who are being challenged or being charged. It is definitely a landmark because you cannot have a law that addresses one cross-section of society while ignoring the other.