In a recent ruling in X v. State of Telangana & Another, the Supreme Court of India made some shocking remarks. Justices B. Nagarathna and Kotiswar Singh stated that there is a “growing tendency” for women to misuse Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)—a provision designed to protect women from cruelty in marriage—by using it as a tool for personal vendetta against their husbands and in-laws. While the judges clarified that women who have suffered cruelty should not remain silent, their observations risk perpetuating harmful stereotypes about women misusing the legal system.

In the said case, a woman filed an FIR in February 2022 alleging cruelty under Section 498A and dowry harassment under the Dowry Prohibition Act. The accused included not just her husband but also six members of his family. While the High Court rejected the husband’s plea to quash the FIR, it restricted arrests until the charge sheet was filed, as per established legal guidelines (Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar). However, the Supreme Court quashed the FIR against the husband and in-laws, citing she made vague and unsubstantiated allegations.

Police Efficiency vs Victim’s Intent

What is concerning is the broader narrative these remarks create. Based on decades of experience working with domestic violence survivors, we know that vague and omnibus allegations in FIRs are often a reflection of police inefficiency rather than the victim’s intent. Women frequently face insensitivity at police stations, where complaints are either dismissed outright or recorded haphazardly. Instead of holding the police accountable for poorly recorded statements, the Supreme Court appears to place the burden on the victim, suggesting that she should ensure her complaint is detailed and precise—a near-impossible expectation in a hostile system.

The Court also made troubling inferences about the absence of earlier complaints by the victim. The justices noted that she married in 2015 and had two children in 2016 and 2017, concluding that there was likely no harassment during this period. This assumption is not only baseless but ignores the reality that many women delay filing complaints due to societal pressure, lack of resources, or repeated attempts by authorities to counsel them into “settling” the matter. The absence of prior legal action cannot and should not be equated with an absence of violence.

The judges highlighted that the victim “abandoned” her two children, who remain in her husband’s custody. This assumption, too, is problematic. Women often face insurmountable barriers to seeking custody, including financial constraints, lack of legal support, and societal stigma. The Court could have considered the possibility that the victim was denied access to her children or made a painful choice to prioritise their stability.

Little Scrutiny Of Letter

Another aspect of the judgment raises serious concerns. The Court referred to a letter the victim allegedly wrote to the police in 2021, admitting she had left her matrimonial home after a quarrel about chatting with another man and promising not to “repeat such acts”. This letter, produced by her husband, was accepted at face value. Yet, anyone familiar with how women are pressured during “counselling” sessions at police stations knows the level of coercion they face. It is alarming that the Court did not scrutinise the circumstances under which this letter was written, especially in a case involving allegations of domestic violence.

Equally disquieting is the Court’s dismissal of the dowry allegations. Despite the victim’s claims of substantial dowry given at the time of marriage, the judges chose to focus on procedural issues and vague allegations rather than allowing the trial to proceed. By doing so, they missed an opportunity to reinforce the illegality of dowry—a deeply entrenched crime that claims the lives of 18 women every day in India, as per the National Crime Records Bureau (2022).

The judgment also framed the FIR as a retaliatory measure, filed after the husband sought a mutual consent divorce. This conclusion overlooks the reality that women often endure violence for years before taking legal action, with divorce threats serving as the final trigger. By framing her complaint as vengeful, the Court risks further discouraging women from seeking legal recourse.

Perhaps most glaringly, the victim was neither present nor represented during the proceedings. Given the systemic hurdles women face in accessing legal support, the Court could have ensured that she had the resources to present her case. Instead, it delivered a judgment that not only undermines her claims but also sets a dangerous precedent for future cases.

Justice Krishna Iyer once said, “A socially sensitised judge is a better statutory armour against gender outrage than long clauses of a complex statute.” Sadly, this case illustrates how far we still are from achieving such sensitivity in our judiciary.

How 498A Is Consistently Undermined

Section 498A, enacted nearly 40 years ago, remains an essential legal safeguard against domestic violence. Yet, its effectiveness is consistently undermined by narratives of misuse, despite overwhelming evidence of the prevalence of domestic violence in India. The National Family Health Survey (2019–20) found that 30% of women aged 18–49 had experienced physical violence since the age of 15—a staggering figure that translates to over 200 million women.

The growing trend of casual and contradictory statements made by Supreme Court judges regarding domestic violence must be addressed without delay. These remarks have a direct and significant impact on how both the police and judiciary respond to cases on the ground, potentially undermining efforts to protect victims and deliver justice. The judiciary must speak with greater compassion recognising the systemic barriers that prevent women from seeking justice.

(Audrey D’mello is the Director of Majlis, and Flavia Agnes is a legal scholar and women’s rights lawyer. Majlis offers legal counselling to women and children facing sexual and domestic violence. For help, call 07506732641.)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the authors

The visuals from Bangladesh are disturbing, and the anger on the streets is palpable. They are reminiscent of scenes from Colombo just two years ago when the Presidential Palace was ransacked following then-President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s flight from Sri Lanka.

According to an NDTV report, “On Monday, protesters set fire to a temporary shed at the residence of Bangladesh’s Prime Minister (now former). They also looted and vandalised Sheikh Hasina’s official residence in Dhaka, smashed a statue of her father, Mujibur Rahman, with hammers, and set her party’s offices ablaze as they celebrated her departure as Prime Minister.”

Such visuals have been widely circulated and analysed by commentators in the last two days. I will refrain from commenting on whether Bangladesh is falling into the hands of radical Islamic groups or whether there was foreign involvement in the regime change on Monday.

My focus here is different. I want to explore the range of emotions that an average Indian has towards a country that has largely been a good neighbour. Alongside the term ‘ghuspaithiye‘ (which gained notoriety with the influx of immigrants right after 1947 of migrants from then-undivided Pakistan) and the range of emotions it evokes, there is a mix of empathy, pain, shared legacy, and a common love for Rabindra Sangeet-all experienced in varying degrees and at different times.

The ‘Ghuspaithiye‘ Sentiment

For people living in parts of Assam, Tripura, and the bordering districts of West Bengal and Bihar, the mass migration from then-East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) between 1948 and 1965 significantly impacted local demographics. The influx surged following the disturbances surrounding Bangladesh’s birth in 1971. According to reliable estimates, there are nearly two crore Bangladeshis in India, with half of them settled in Assam and West Bengal alone.

Since then, the term ‘ghuspaithiye‘, or ‘illegal immigrant’, has become ingrained in the Indian psyche, especially in the context of Bangladesh. The attitude towards these immigrants has often been one of contempt, primarily driven by class bias. They are perceived as poor, persecuted, and a drain on scarce resources. Yet, they are not hated, likely due to another powerful sentiment towards Bangladeshis: empathy.

We Played A Role In Their Liberation

This sense of empathy arises from India’s active role in Bangladesh’s liberation from Pakistan after a bloody struggle. The partition of Pakistan was also seen by many Indians as a vindication of the belief that creating a nation-state based on religion was a flawed concept-a belief that had led to the partition of India in 1947. This sentiment has persisted, and occasional anti-India protests in Bangladesh are considered minor deviations from an otherwise well-behaved neighbour and are therefore mostly overlooked.

Pain Across the Border

Growing up in the 1980s and 1990s, my generation was frequently exposed to news about nature’s fury in Bangladesh and its devastating toll. Reports from the November 1970 cyclone, one of the deadliest on record, indicated that nearly 5,00,000 lives were lost in then-East Pakistan. Another cyclone in 1985 killed 11,000 people, and one in 1991 claimed nearly 1,50,000 lives.
These reports of widespread destruction frequently made us sad, and there was a sense of shared pain. Combined with empathy, this constituted a significant portion of the positive feeling we held towards Bangladesh.

They, Too, Love Their Rabindra Sangeet

A strong Bengali identity played a crucial role in East Pakistan’s transition to Bangladesh. Following liberation, Rabindranath Tagore’s Amar Sonar Bangla, penned in 1905, became the new country’s national anthem. Rabindra Sangeet is as popular in West Bengal as it is across the border in Bangladesh. The beautiful Padma River that separates the two geographies has done nothing to diminish this shared legacy.

Since ties between India and Bangladesh have remained warm throughout Bangladesh’s journey, the feelings and emotions described above have persisted. Hence the feeling of loss now as we see the widespread vandalism taking place on the streets of Bangladesh.

As the Indian government considers its stance and options amidst the current turmoil in Bangladesh, it must remain mindful of the shared legacy and common sentiments held by people across the border. It should, therefore, strive to ensure that Bangladesh remains a good neighbour for years to come. Not a tall ask given the long history of bonhomie between the two countries.

(Mayank Mishra is Consulting Editor at NDTV)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author