“The anti-dowry law is being modified,” I told a colleague in passing.
“Is it a good change or a bad one?” she asked.
“I mean….considering it’s India, one has to ask,” she added with a laugh.
Considering that it’s India, one surely has to ask. The recently proposed amendments by the government to the present anti-dowry law in India is not just raising eyebrows, it is bringing vehement objections from women’s rights’ activists.
Government is now working on a proposal to make Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code-that deals with offences of dowry demand and cruelty by husband and in-laws-compoundable. This means that the law, if amended, would have the provision of settlement between the warring couple if the court allows the same.
As the law stands now, the offence is non-compoundable and non-bailable. This leads to immediate arrest of husband and in-laws with onus to prove their innocence on them.
This plan was proposed because of reports of many false cases of dowry harassment being reported. There are a couple of groups of men in the country, called Men against 498a and Domestic Violence act and also Save Indian Family (SIF), who have been particularly vociferous in demanding changes in this anti-dowry law. These are alleged victims of the act, who complain that they were wrongfully charged with it and arrested. They want the act to be gender neutral.
In fact one of their key proponents from SIF, Santoshkumar B Potdar has planned a 2500 km walkathon culminating outside the PM’s office in Delhi on May 3, in order to urge the PM to implement the proposed amendments.
On the other hand women’s right activists insist that these amendments would dilute the law, including one of the BJP’s government’s own minister, Maneka Gandhi. “I don’t think the law should be changed. I feel that this is the only law that gives women protection. It should stay as it is,” Maneka, who holds charge of the ministry of women and child development, told TOI in response to the proposed amendments.
We are inclined to agree with Maneka and the other women activists. While the men’s groups may have a genuine grievance about the cases pending against them, false cases as such form only 10% of the total number of dowry cases reported. This amendment would not only affect the other 90% genuine cases, it would make matters worse for the thousands of women whose tales of woe go unreported, to the point of death. In some cases, even the deaths go wrongly reported.
Besides, the Supreme Court already introduced an amendment last year in July ruling that police cannot immediately and automatically arrest husbands or in-laws merely upon receiving a complaint. They have to be satisfied about the need for an arrest. That by itself effectively reduces chances of arrests over fake complaints.
“The act has already been amended to prohibit immediate arrests,” said Sudha Ramalingam, a lawyer and an advocate of human rights. “Still there was at least a semblance of fear among men regarding the act. With this amendment that allows for out-of-court settlement, even that fear is gone. This waters down the severity of punishment too.”
The government could at least wait and observe the impact of the Supreme Court amendment last July instead of acting hasty and further diluting the only protection that may be available for many women. If it cannot see the gross misuse of law that an amendment like would make available to men, then clearly the government’s interests lie in a different direction. And it’s wits too. It’s time they acted for the greater good – for the greater number of the 90% of genuine cases where women have faced struggle and misery.
Image Courtesy: Shutterstock
More on>> Balancing Act
