The Supreme Court in Shivangi Bansal vs Sahib Bansal (2025) endorsed guidelines by the Allahabad High Court’s (2022) to prevent misuse of Section 498A of the IPC (Now Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita)

Key Guidelines Issues by Allahabad High Court’s (2022)

In Mukesh Bansal vs State of U.P. (2022), the Allahabad High Court issued guidelines to prevent misuse of Section 498A IPC.

• ‘Cooling Period’: The High Court introduced a two-month ‘cooling period’ for coercive action after an FIR or complaint registration.
• Family Welfare Committee (FWC): During this period, the case is referred to a Family Welfare Committee (FWC).
• Concern Raised: This has reignited debates on judicial experimentalism since such measures, while aimed at preventing misuse, may delay a victim’s right to prompt justice and undermine statutory processes.

About Judicial Experimentalism 

• Judicial Experimentalism: It refers to the tendency of courts to go beyond mere interpretation of law and introduce innovative mechanisms to address perceived gaps.
• Key Features:
  • Innovative Remedies: Directions like cooling-off periods or extra-legal committees.
  • Policy Influence: Judiciary assumes a quasi-legislative role, stepping into domains of the legislature/executive.
  • Trial-and-Error: Such experiments often face rollback if found impractical or unconstitutional.
• Examples: Vishaka Guidelines (1997): On workplace harassment, filled legislative vacuum until the POSH Act, 2013.
  • Prakash Singh Case (2006): Issued binding directives for police reforms.
  • Rajesh Sharma (2017): Introduced FWCs for 498A cases, later struck down in Social Action Forum (2018).
• Implications of Judicial Experimentalism in This Case
• • Positive Aspects:
    • Protects innocent husbands/families from wrongful arrest.
    • Encourages reconciliation in matrimonial disputes.
  • Negative Aspects:
    • Denies victims timely redressal and immediate protection.
    • Weakens criminal justice institutions by sidelining statutory processes.
    • Risks repeating past failed experiments like Rajesh Sharma guidelines.

Challenges of Judicial Experimentalism

• Delay in Justice:  Experimental mechanisms often insert extra steps (e.g., mandatory cooling periods or screening committees).
  • For Example: Victims must wait 2 months even after lodging FIR/complaint, worsening their situation.

• Jurisdictional Overreach: Courts sometimes design remedies without statutory sanction, creating parallel structures outside legislative framework.
  • For Example:  FWCs lack statutory backing, leading to ambiguity about their jurisdiction and powers.
• Contradicts Precedent: Judicial experiments may clash with earlier rulings.
  • For Example: Rajesh Sharma (2017) guidelines were called regressive and struck down in Social Action Forum (2018).
• Undermines Criminal Justice Agencies: By imposing non-statutory checks, courts limit the discretion of police, magistrates, and executive agencies.
• Psychological and Social Impact: Victims face prolonged harassment, lack of immediate protection, and erosion of trust in the justice system.
• Polarisation of Stakeholders: Experiments may appease one group (e.g., preventing misuse of law by accused parties) while alienating another (victims, activists).
  • This leads to contested legitimacy of judicial directions.

Way Forward

• Revisit the Ruling: SC should reconsider in light of Social Action Forum (2018), which restored victims’ right to prompt justice.
• Legislative Clarity: Any reconciliation mechanism should be legislated, not judicially imposed.
• Strengthen Existing Safeguards: Ensure effective implementation of Arnesh Kumar directions through police training.
• Encourage Voluntary Mediation: Pre-litigation mediation can be promoted, but only as an option, not compulsion.
• Data-Driven Policy: With NCRB data showing arrests already declining, additional hurdles are unnecessary.

Conclusion

The judiciary must strike a balance between innovation and restraint. Preventing misuse of Section 498A is a valid concern, but justice delayed is justice denied. Judicial experimentalism should supplement legislative intent, not supplant it.

• Access to speedy justice is a constitutional guarantee under Article 21, and any innovation must ensure that the victim’s right to redressal is not compromised.

DOWNLOAD PDF