SC Freezes Quick Arrests In Marriage Cruelty Cases, Bats For Two-Month ‘Cooling Period'
The Supreme Court, while hearing a case where a man and his father spent months in jail after the wife filed several false cases against them, has reaffirmed that no immediate arrests should be made in cases of alleged cruelty by spouses under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Instead, a mandatory two-month 'cooling-off" period will be in place before any police action is considered, upholding guidelines first framed by the Allahabad High Court.
The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih, was hearing a case where the man and his father had spent over 100 days in jail based on false complaints filed by the wife, an IPS officer. Recognising the irreparable harm suffered, the court ordered the wife to issue an unconditional public apology, calling it a measure of moral redress for the wrongful imprisonment sustained by her husband and father-in-law.
According to the guidelines, after an FIR is lodged for cruelty in marriage, police authorities must wait two months before taking any coercive action, including arrest. During this period, cases must be referred to Family Welfare Committees set up in every district, which will review the complaints and try to achieve a settlement. Only cases involving offences punishable by less than 10 years' imprisonment, including 498A, will be referred to these committees. Each Family Welfare Committee will consist of at least three members and will function as an independent review body before further police intervention is permitted.
These directives have their legal roots in the Allahabad High Court's 2022 judgment, which sought to address a worrying trend: the misuse of Section 498A via sweeping, unsubstantiated allegations that could result in entire families—sometimes even extended relatives—being implicated, harassed, and jailed. The Supreme Court, by endorsing these safeguards, has now clarified that such protection is vital to prevent unnecessary arrests and to ensure the criminal justice system is not weaponized in personal disputes.
In the case that led to this decision, the matrimonial discord involved a series of litigations in multiple cities, with over 20 different cases related to domestic violence, maintenance, and criminal charges. The bench observed that what the accused had suffered due to the misapplication of the law 'cannot be resituated or compensated in any manner," highlighting the need for systemic procedural reform.
Legal experts believe that the cooling period and welfare committee review will help to weed out frivolous and malicious complaints, protect those who may otherwise be wrongly ensnared in criminal proceedings, and focus mediation on reconciliation and fair outcomes. Meanwhile, the core protections for genuinely aggrieved women remain intact, as serious allegations supported by strong evidence can still be acted upon—after the initial review.
view comments
First Published:
July 23, 2025, 13:27 IST
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Another clean chit for Param Bir in 1.3cr extortion case
Mumbai: The CBI has filed a chargesheet against a serving deputy commissioner of police Akbar Pathan and retired assistant commissioner Siddharth Shinde, but excluded former city police commissioner IPS officer Param Bir Singh and retired ACP Sanjay Patil in a case of extorting money from builder Shyam Sunder Agrawal at the instance of business rival Sanjay Punamiya. This is the fourth of the five cases registered during the erstwhile MVA rule, where Singh has been excluded from criminal prosecution. The CBI said that "no prosecutable evidence revealing involvement of Param Bir Singh and Sanjay Patil has surfaced." The chargesheet also said that the investigation showed that Punamiya, despite being a private person, possessed confidential information, including call detail records (CDRs), correspondence between the state govt and the CBI, and top-secret documents of Rashmi Shukla (DGP), the then Commissioner of the State Intelligence Department Maharashtra. The chargesheet said, "The source of documents of correspondence between State of Maharashtra and CBI was Whatsapp. The analysis of Whatsapp chats of accused Sanjay Punamiya revealed that the source of this information was DCP Trimukhe." Previously, the CBI had filed chargesheets against police inspector Nandkumar Gopale, police inspector Asha Korke, Sanjay Punamiya and Sunil Jain in the same case. Agrawal and Punamiya had a long pending dispute over a land parcel at Gorai. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 15 Most Beautiful Women Ever Today's NYC Undo You Can Also Check: Mumbai AQI | Weather in Mumbai | Bank Holidays in Mumbai | Public Holidays in Mumbai According to the CBI, the accused police officers extorted around Rs 1.25 crore from Agrawal to avoid his arrest under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) and for ensuring his release from the jail. Through technical evidence and statements, CBI supported its case of alleged extortion executed via hawala involving Pathan, Gopale, and Korke. The chargesheet further includes statements from a cyber expert, Ishaan Sinha, who was earlier in controversy for preparing a report on a message on Telegram channel through which an outfit named Jaish-ul-Hind had claimed responsibility for placing the explosives-laden SUV near Antilia. Sinha, who provides cyber training to the policemen and is in good contacts of several senior IPS officers, told the CBI that he had made a spoof call to a number provided by Punamiya, ensuring that it appeared as though originating from Pakistan. Later, based on this call, Punamiya falsely claimed he received a threat call from Pakistan-based gangster Chhota Shakeel at the behest of Agrawal and he had filed a case against Agrawal at Juhu police station. In 2021, Agrawal had filed an FIR alleging the accused officers with Punamiya had extorted money and properties under the threat of lodging false MCOCA offences against him. He had named Param Bir in the case. Subsequently, on the petition of Param Bir, the Supreme Court transferred the probe to the CBI. The CBI chargesheet stated, DCP crime Akbar Pathan, in his office at Andheri, demanded Rs 50 lakh and a 2 BHK flat in Bhayander from Shubham Agrawal for not taking action against his uncle (Shyam Sundar Agrawal) in the presence of Punamiya.
India.com
an hour ago
- India.com
Big setback for Donald Trump as Federal Court strikes down birthright citizenship order across US; how will it affect Indians?
(Image: Reuters) New Delhi: A federal court in America has again stayed President Donald Trump's order which said that if a child's parents are living illegally in America, then that child will not get American citizenship. This is the third time that the court has stopped Trump's order from being implemented. The court also said that the final decision on this matter will be taken by the Supreme Court, but until any order comes from there, this rule of Trump will not be implemented. When was the order passed? Trump had banned Birthright Citizenship by signing an executive order on January 20, the day of his swearing-in. A few days after this, the US Federal Court had stayed President Donald Trump's decision to end the right to birthright citizenship for 14 days. Earlier on June 28, the US Supreme Court had given a decision in favour of President Trump. The Supreme Court had said that the judges of the lower courts cannot stop Trump's birthright citizenship order across the country. They should reconsider their order. What did the US Supreme Court say? The Supreme Court had said with a majority of 6-3 that a federal judge alone cannot decide to stop policies across the country. Now if a case like Trump's order has to be stopped, then many people will have to sue together, not just one state or person. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who wrote the decision, had said – the job of federal courts is not to monitor government orders. Their job is to resolve matters according to the powers given by Parliament. However, the court did not give any immediate decision on Trump's order and also ordered not to allow Trump's order to be implemented for 30 days i.e. till July 28. This means that for now, children born in America will continue to get citizenship, as they used to get earlier. Under which 3 situations citizenship is not granted by Trump's order? The executive order by which Trump abolished the birthright citizenship law is named 'Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship'. This order refuses to grant American citizenship in 3 situations. If the mother of a child born in America is living there illegally. At the time of the child's birth, the mother is a legal but temporary resident of America. The father should not be a US citizen or a legal permanent resident at the time of the child's birth. The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution gives the right to birthright citizenship. Through this, children of immigrants living in the US also get the right to citizenship. What will be the effect on Indians? According to the data of the US Census Bureau till 2024, about 54 lakh Indians live in America. This is about one and a half percent of the US population. Two-thirds of these people are first generation immigrants. That is, they went to America first in the family, but the rest are citizens born in America. If the Supreme Court gives an order in favour of Trump's bill, then it will become difficult for first generation immigrants to get American citizenship. However, if it gives an order against it, then citizenship will remain as before.
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
Assam's Foreigners' Tribunals disregard constitutional safeguards: report
The quasi-judicial Foreigners' Tribunals (FTs) in Assam have become routine instruments of exclusion by disregarding due process and constitutional safeguards, a comprehensive study of these tribunals and the broader legal crisis of India's citizenship adjudication has found. The report by the Bengaluru-based National Law School of India University (NLSIU) and the Queen Mary University of London, to be formally released on Sunday (July 27, 2025), called for an urgent, fundamental rethinking of the legal structures governing citizenship in India given the possibility of an Assam-like exercise to update the National Register of Citizens (NRC) across the country. Titled 'Unmaking Citizens: The Architecture of Rights Violations and Exclusion in India's Citizenship Trials', the report has been authored by Mohsin Alam Bhat of Queen Mary University, Arushi Gupta, and Shardul Gopujkar, with the support of researchers and law students from the NLSIU, and members of Parichay Legal Aid Clinic. 'As of 2025, Assam's tribunals have declared nearly 166,000 people as 'foreigners'. In addition to more than 85,000 pending cases, these tribunals may also soon hear more than a million appeals from those excluded from the NRC,' Mr. Bhat said. The report analyses more than 1,200 Gauhati High Court orders, key Supreme Court judgments, and extensive interviews with lawyers and litigants. It documents 'widespread arbitrariness in decision-making, including the wholesale rejection of documentary and oral evidence, and the absence of legal norms to protect individuals from wrongful targeting'. 'Citizenship adjudication engages constitutionally significant questions with profound consequences, including the risk of statelessness. Such determinations require bodies that are legally constituted, independent, impartial, and composed of competent legal officers,' the study summarises in a chapter on 'institutionalised arbitrariness'. The report argued that the FT system fails on all these counts. 'It lacks a secure legal foundation, is vulnerable to executive interference, and is staffed by inadequately qualified adjudicators. It thus stands in stark violation of the rule of law and the right to an effective remedy under both domestic and international law,' it said, adding that the FTs have become routine instruments of exclusion and violate the right to a fair trial. 'Lowering standards' Assam currently has 100 FTs, each headed by a judge-like member, which were formed after the Supreme Court scrapped the controversial Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act of 1983 in 2005. Of these 100 tribunals, 36 are permanent and 54 require periodic extension of terms from the Ministry of Home Affairs. The study further highlights that the appointment process for FT members is opaque, with no guaranteed tenure. Advertisements by the Gauhati High Court and notifications from the Assam Government's Political Department specify terms of one or two years, varying by executive whim, and extendable at the State's discretion, it says. 'This tenure is governed by no legislation or by-laws and depends entirely on executive whim, despite being an essential legislative function. Moreover, it is violative of the Supreme Court's judgments holding that a tenure of less than 5 years threatens to compromise the quality of adjudication by tribunals,' it said. 'The qualifications for FT members have progressively weakened. In 2011, only retired judicial officers from the Assam Judicial Service, experienced in procedural law, were eligible. They could serve until age 67, with salaries based on last drawn pay plus allowances. This ensured appointments of individuals with judicial expertise. By 2015, eligibility expanded to include advocates with at least 10 years of practice, lowering the standard,' the report said. Appointments became two-year contracts with fixed monthly pay, enabling lawyers without judicial experience to decide critical citizenship matters. The 2019 revisions diluted requirements further; minimum practice dropped to seven years, minimum age to 35, and appointments became more flexible, allowing less experienced candidates to adjudicate complex citizenship issues, thereby compromising the quality of justice,' it stated. A Gauhati High Court notification added criteria of 'fair knowledge of the official language of Assam' and 'Assam's historical background giving rise to foreigners' issues.' Yet, no requirement exists for expertise in immigration or citizenship law, the report pointed out. The authors noted with concern that citizenship determination under the FTs has remained unchanged even after Parliament enacted the Immigration and Foreigners Act of 2025. 'The stakes for legal violations have become unprecedented, with the prospects of a nationwide NRC exercise and the recent spree of 'pushback' deportations in Assam,' they said, calling for an overhaul of the legal structures governing citizenship in India.
