India As I Know: आप कौन से भारत से हैं?

कहते हैं स्वयं के अधिकारों के लिए खड़ी हुई स्त्री सबसे खूबसूरत स्त्री होती है. किताबें थाम समाज से लड़ती सावित्रीबाई फुले, रमाबाई सरस्वती और तलवार थाम अंग्रेजों से लड़ती कित्तूर रानी चेन्नम्मा, झाँसी रानी लक्ष्मीबाई बेहद खूबसूरत रही होंगी.

मैंने पूर्व में जो उदाहरण दिए हैं उनमें अधिकतर स्त्रियों के हैं. दरअसल यही हमारा आठवां इंडिया है. देश की आधी आबादी का भारत.

निर्भया केस के बाद पुलिस से भिड़ती, कैंडल मार्च करती स्त्रियाँ बेहद खूबसूरत स्त्रियाँ थीं. संसद में 33% रिजर्वेशन के लिए संसद में बहस करती लड़कियां देखिए, हक की लड़ाई उनके चेहरे पर अप्रतिम सौंदर्य लेकर आता है.

मेरी शिक्षिका माँ जब सुबह स्कूल के लिए निकलती है तो बेहद ताकतवर और खूबसूरत नज़र आती है.

उन्नीसवीं सदी में Public Places (सार्वजानिक स्थलों) पर स्त्रियाँ कहीं नहीं थीं, बीसवीं सदी की शुरुआत में उन्होंने अपने डैनों को पसारना शुरू किया.

कल्पना दत्त, एनी बेसेंट, सरोजनी नायडू, अम्बिका साराभाई जैसे कई नामों ने घर से निकलकर स्वतंत्रता के लिए लड़ाई लड़ी. इसके लिए महात्मा गाँधी के प्रोत्साहन और अहिंसक आन्दोलन का अभूतपूर्व योगदान रहा. जिसने इन्हें घर से निकलकर संघर्ष करने के लिए प्रेरित किया.

1970 तक स्त्रियाँ मुख्यत: खेतों में काम करती नज़र आती थी.

1980 तक आप स्त्री को मुख्यत: शिक्षक या डॉक्टर के रूम में देख पाते थे.

लेकिन इक्कीसवीं सदी देखिए, यहाँ लडकियां पॉलिटिक्स ज्वाइन करने में सबसे आगे नज़र आती हैं, मल्टीनेशनल कंपनियों में ऑफिस जाती हैं, वीकेंड्स सेलिब्रेट करती हैं. हर क्षेत्र में परचम लहराए हुए हैं. सिविल सर्विसेज एग्जाम के पिछले तीन सालों के टोपर्स के नाम देखिये, तीनों लड़कियां ही हैं.

यह आठवां भारत जिसे पितृसत्ता ने हमेशा द्वितीय स्तर का नागरिक समझा है उसने बीसवीं सदी के उत्तरार्ध से स्वयं की स्वतंत्रता के साथ-साथ राष्ट्र के सामाजिक-आर्थिक उत्थान में महत्वपूर्ण भूमिका अदा की है.

लेकिन ऐसा नहीं है कि आठवें भारत के सामने चुनौतियाँ नहीं हैं. इस भारत से लोग डरे हुए नहीं हैं या पितृसत्ता ने बाधाएं पैदा नहीं की हैं.

जो डरा हुआ भारत है वही नौवां इंडिया है.

इस नौवें शम्भू प्रताप सिंह राठौर जैसे यौन शोषक अधिकारी भी शामिल हैं, निर्भया केस के छः क्रूर अपराधी भी शामिल हैं. साथ ही रेप पर बेहद अशोभनीय और बेहूदा बयान- ‘लड़कों से गलतियाँ हो जाती हैं.’ देने वाले मुलायम सिंह जैसे कई राजनेता भी शामिल हैं.

दहेज़ हत्याएं करने वाले लोग भी शामिल हैं. पत्नियों को पीटने वाले पति भी शामिल हैं. बेटियों को कोख मारने वाले, अशिक्षित रखने वाले माँ-बाप भी शामिल हैं. धर्म-संस्कृति के नाम पर औरतों की स्वतंत्रता छीनने वाले लोग, धर्म-गुरु भी शामिल हैं और ऐसे धार्मिक कानून भी.

सड़क पर बेहूदा फब्तियां कसने वाले लोग भी और लड़कियां छेड़ने वाले लोग भी.

कित्नु आठवां भारत- स्त्रियों का भारत इनसे डरने वाला नहीं है.

जब श्रीराम सेने बैंगलोर में पबों में महिलाओं को संस्कृति के नाम पर पीटती हैं वो स्त्रियाँ भी पिंक-चड्डी कैम्पेन चलाकर मुंहतोड़ जवाब देती हैं.

जब तीन-तलाक़ जैसी व्यवस्था क्रूरता की हदें पार कर देती है तो अधिकार पाने ‘ऑल इंडिया मुस्लिम महिला आन्दोलन’ न्यायपालिका का सहारा लेकर सारी व्यवस्था को ही गैर-कानूनी साबित कर देता है.

जब शनि शिगनापुर या हाजी अली में पूजा/प्रवेश पर प्रतिबन्ध लगा दिया जाता है तो तृप्ति देसाई और भूमाता ब्रिगेड आन्दोलन खड़ा कर अपना हक वापिस प्राप्त करते हैं.

आठवां इंडिया नौवें इंडिया से डरा हुआ नहीं है. वह इसकी जड़े हिलाने में समर्थ है, और उसने  हिला के भी रख दिया है.

मैं सफल स्त्रियों में कई बड़े नाम- इंदिरा गाँधी, किरण मजूमदार शॉ, इला भट्ट, चंदा कोचर इत्यादि उदाहरण स्वरुप ले सकता हूँ किन्तु मैं यहाँ अपने मित्रों- रीना, शुचि, प्रतीक्षा, याशिका, निशा, रोशनी आदि के नाम लेना चाहूँगा जिनकी स्वतंत्रता, समर्थता, कार्यकुशलता, निर्णय लेने की क्षमता, सोच और सफलता खुद में एक मिसाल है.

इनकी सफलता मैं इनके अलावा इनके माता-पिता का भी अपूर्व योगदान है. मेरी मित्र निवेदिता जब अपनी फोटो के साथ कैप्शन में यह लिखती है- ‘The portrait of amazing parents of a girl child.’ तो उनके संघर्ष और मेहनत सर्व-दृश्य होते है.

हालाँकि मैं यह दावा नहीं कर सकता कि कार्यस्थल तक का सफ़र और कार्यस्थल पर उन्हें पूर्णतः सुरक्षा मुहैया हुई है.

विशाखा गाइडलाइन्स ही 1997 में आई थीं. उसके पहले तक कार्यस्थल पर सुरक्षा के नाम पर गाइडलाइन्स तक नहीं थीं.

कार्यस्थल पर असुरक्षा और कार्यस्थल तक पहुँचाने में असुरक्षा को लेकर मुझे दो बड़े केस क्रमश: - रसिका राजू केस (जनवरी २०१७, इनफ़ोसिस पुणे) और प्रतिभा श्रीकाँटा मूर्ति केस (दिसम्बर 2005, बैंगलोर) याद हैं. लेकिन इनके बारे में किसी अन्य आर्टिकल में बात करेंगे.

विश्व बैंक अनुसार अगर Women Workforce Participation अभी के लगभग इक-चौथाई से 100% हो गया तो देश की जीडीपी 60% तक बढ़ जाएगी!

मुझे उम्मीद ही नहीं यकीन है कि ऐसा होगा क्यूंकि आठवाँ भारत नौवें भारत से न तो डरा हुआ है न डरने वाला है.

अंत में, मुझे यह लेख लिखने की आवश्यकता हुई मतलब अभी भी बहुत कुछ किया जाना जरूरी है और इसके लिए तमाम निजी-सरकारी प्रयास और सुरक्षा के कई उपाय आवश्यक होंगे तथा समाज और पुलिस का नजरिया बदलने की भी आवश्यकता होगी.

साथ ही, यह आपको तय करना है कि आप कौन से भारत से हैं- आठवें या नौवें? 

कमला भसीन अनुसार पितृसत्ता का मतलब पुरुषों द्वारा स्त्रियों से दोयम दर्ज़े का व्यवहार करना नहीं है बल्कि इसका मतलब है लिंग से परे किसी भी के द्वारा स्त्री को दूसरे दर्ज़े के नागरिक की तरह व्यवहार करना, उनके विकास में रुकावटें डालना. इसलिए महिलायें भी पितृसत्तात्मक हो सकती हैं.

women security issue

उन परिवारों में भी, जहां औरतों के लिए तमाम पाबंदियां हैं, पुरु षों की उद्दंडता पर कोई लगाम नहीं है। लड़कियां बाहर निकल रही हैं। उच्च शिक्षा लेकर, बेहतर जीवन चुन रही हैं। बावजूद इसके खांटी रूढ़िवादी सोच वाले पुरु षों का समूह हमेशा इस ताक में फिरता है, कि वह स्त्री की देह को अपना शिकार बना ले। इस तरह के सोच वाले पुरु षों को स्त्री की यह तरक्की आंख की किरकिरी लगती है। इसमें कोई संदेह नहीं कि यह जश्न नव वर्ष का न होकर होली या किसी आम मेले का होता तो भी स्त्री के साथ हील-हुज्जत करने वालों का हुजूम मौजूद रहता। औरतों के साथ सलीके से पेश आने का शऊर अभी भी पुरु षों में कम ही दिखता है। जो पुरु ष इस तरह की अभद्रता नहीं कर पाते हैं, उनकी भाषा और बोल-चाल में स्त्री के प्रति अश्लीलता व निर्लज्जता साफ देखी जा सकती है।

माननीय तो हमेशा की तरह, रटी-रटाई दुहाई देकर चलते बने। अपनी दिमागी क्षमता भर का गहन विश्लेषण करने के बाद उन्होंने दोहराया, यह सब पश्चिमी पोशाकें पहनने के कारण हुआ। यह जो भीतर से निकला हुआ, शुद्ध पुरु षवादी विचार है; इस पर रोक कैसे संभव है? शायद ही कोई औरत भूली होगी, उप्र के बुजुर्ग नेता का बलात्कार पर दिया गया उदगार-कि लड़कों से ऐसी गलतियां हो जाती हैं। कुछेक साल पहले, दिल्ली की पूर्व मुख्यमंत्री ने तुनक कर मीडिया से कहा था, इतनी रात में निकलेंगी बाहर (लड़कियां) तो यही होगा। सत्ता के शीर्ष पर बैठे नुमाइंदों की बयानबाजी बताती है, स्त्री को लेकर इनकी सोच कितनी निचले पायदान पर ठहरी हुई है। छेड़छाड़, छींटाकशी, अश्लील इशारेबाजी के खिलाफ तमाम नियम/कानून बन जाने के बावजूद पुरु षों में सलीका नहीं आया है।

शहरों को स्मार्ट बनाने भर से या हर हाथ में मोबाइल सेट पहुंच जाने से दिमागी संकीर्णताएं व रूढ़िवादी संस्कारों को नहीं बदला जा सकता। उत्सव-आनन्द पुरु षों के लिए आरक्षित नहीं किए जा सकते। इस तरह की कोई भी घटना लड़कियों को मानसिक तनाव देती है और उनके स्वाभिमान को चोटिल भी करती है। आप उन्हें कुछ दें भले ही ना, पर जो उनके पास है, जो उनका अधिकार है, उस पर अपनी गंदी नजर न डालें।

The case against customary exclusion

On January 18, the Supreme Court will hear final arguments on the question of whether women can be barred entry to the Sabarimala shrine in Kerala. During the hearing on January 11, Justice Dipak Misra indicated that he was broadly sympathetic to women’s claims to entering and worshipping at the shrine. He is reported to have said, “Unless you [i.e. the governing board of the shrine] have a constitutional right to prohibit women entry, you cannot prevent them from worshipping at the shrine.”

These remarks have caused quite a stir. In particular, Justice Misra’s reference to the Constitution, and his suggestion that its non-discrimination clauses might be applicable to this dispute, raise some complex questions about the relationship between freedom of religion, equality, individual rights, and the extent to which the court can interfere in the management of religious institutions.

Room for state intervention

The history of the framing of the Constitution is a history of conflicting and clashing philosophies. The Constitution’s fundamental rights chapter grants rights to individuals against the state, to individuals against other individuals, to groups and communities against the state, and, as a final layer, allows the state to restrict these rights for various reasons of social and public interest. Tension between these various provisions is inevitable, and is perhaps reflected most starkly in the religious freedom clauses: Articles 25 and 26. Article 25(1) guarantees to all persons the right to freely profess, practise, and propagate their religion. Mirroring this, Article 26(b) grants to religious denominations the right to manage their own affairs in the matter of religion. Overriding both these provisions, Article 25(2) allows state intervention in religious practice, if it is for the purpose of “social welfare or reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus”.

During the debates in the Constituent Assembly, B.R. Ambedkar — supported, among others, by Rajkumari Amrit Kaur, who expressed specific concerns about the plight of women under religious law — endorsed giving wide, interventionist powers to the state on the ground of the deep and pervasive role that religion played in the lives of Indians. “The religious conceptions in this country are so vast that they cover every aspect of life, from birth to death,” he observed, “I do not think it is possible to accept a position of that sort. There is nothing extraordinary in saying that we ought to strive hereafter to limit the definition of religion in such a manner that we shall not extend beyond beliefs and such rituals as may be connected with ceremonials which are essentially religious.” Over the years, the Supreme Court has itself restricted the scope of the religious protection clause to “essential practices of a religion”. While holding that the state cannot use the reform clause to “reform a religion out of existence”, it has nonetheless held that aspects beyond essential practices have no protection from state intervention.

Why does this matter? It matters because the Sabarimala governing board’s argument is that the prohibition of women is justified by “custom”. They rely upon the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965, which permit prohibiting women from accessing places of worship where “custom” or “usage” requires it. During the January 11 hearing, Justice Misra doubted the existence of any such custom. The court’s previous jurisprudence suggests that the burden upon the board will not merely be to establish the existence of a custom, but also that the custom is “essential” to the practice of the religion.

What if the board fails? If it cannot show that prohibiting women from entry is an essential religious practice, then it can no longer claim absolute immunity under Article 26(b). Conversely, however, the women worshippers can argue that prohibiting them from access violates their right to worship under Article 25(1).

It has long been accepted by the Supreme Court that the right to worship, as well as modes of worship, are protected by Article 25(1). While the court, admittedly, has held that the right to worship does not extend to worshipping in any and every place, it has also noted that access to places having a “particular significance for [a particular] religion” is constitutionally protected.

If, therefore, the women worshippers can demonstrate that the Sabarimala shrine has special and unique religious significance, their Article 25(1) right to worship there stands established. The board’s prohibition upon their entry, consequently, impermissibly violates their constitutional right to freedom of religion.

The state and the shrine

That does not, however, entirely resolve the issue. The right to freedom of religion under Article 25(1) is enforceable against the state, and not against other individuals, or corporate bodies. The question that the court must answer therefore is whether the Travancore Devaswom Board, which controls access to the shrine, can be equated to the “state”.

In fact, in an earlier decision, the Kerala High Court already appears to have held that it can. Previously, the Supreme Court has held that corporate bodies that are “functionally, financially and administratively” under the control of the state can be equated to the state for the purposes of fundamental rights. The Travancore Devaswom Board is an autonomous body. While its members are appointed by the State legislature, it derives its main income from the administration of the temple. Therefore, it might be difficult to argue that the board is functionally or financially under the control of the state. And if the board cannot be equated with the state, then the constitutional right under Article 25(1) is not enforceable against it.

That does not yet mean that the case is lost. The Supreme Court has held that if one private party obstructs another private party from exercising her constitutional right, then it is the duty of the state to effectuate her right by restraining the former from continuing with its obstruction. Therefore, the women worshippers may ask the court to direct the state to take all necessary steps to guarantee that they are allowed to access and worship at the Sabarimala shrine.

Finally, there is another route the court might take. The Kerala Hindu Places of Worship Rules speak about “customs” and “usages”. The Supreme Court has held that while personal law is exempt from the application of the Constitution, mere ‘custom’ is not. It might therefore simply strike down the offending rule on the ground that it discriminates on grounds of gender, and therefore violates the Constitution.

The Sabarimala case is not the only case of this sort that is before the judiciary. Last year, a group of women approached the Bombay High Court asking for the recognition of their right to enter and worship at the Haji Ali Dargah shrine. The matter is presently awaiting a decision.

It seems clear that the coming months will see the question of gender justice in religious institutions at the forefront of the judicial landscape. It is now the task of the courts to craft a solution that advances the constitutional guarantee of equality, non-discrimination and freedom of religion, while remaining cognisant of the fact that the Constitution also guarantees the right of religious sects and denominations to self-governance.

( Gautam Bhatia is a Delhi-based lawyer. His book Offend, Shock or Disturb: Freedom of Speech under the Indian Constitution was published last year. )

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/the-case-against-customary-exclusion/article8109225.ece

A budget for women

The coming Union budget is significant for at least two reasons: first, this will be the new government’s maiden full year budget. Second, with the NITI Aayog replacing the Planning Commission, the government is likely to abolish the distinction between plan and non-plan budgets.

This year’s budget is also an opportunity for the government to demonstrate its commitment to gender equality. Gender issues have found consistent mention in official fora, including in the speeches of the Prime Minister. Ensuring adequate allocations for policies and programmes for women will help translate those commitments into action.

Development challenge

Gender inequality poses a significant development challenge in India. The Global Gender Gap Index 2014 ranked India at 114 out of 142 countries. The ranking is based on a country’s ability to reduce gender disparities in four areas: economic participation and opportunity, education, political empowerment, and health and survival. Violence against women and girls persists, both in private and in public spaces.

As a response to these challenges, India adopted ‘gender-responsive budgeting’ (GRB) in 2005. Put simply, GRB is a method of planning, programming and budgeting that helps advance gender equality and women’s rights. It also serves as an indicator of governments’ commitment to meeting those objectives. So far, 57 government Ministries/departments in India have set up Gender Budgeting Cells — a major step that could potentially impact the lives of crores of women. An analysis of GRB in India, 10 years after it was adopted, will be a crucial pointer to the way forward.

The quantum of allocations for schemes relating to women — out of a budget of nearly Rs.18 lakh crore (2014-15 budget estimate) — can be assessed by examining the Gender Budget Statement (GBS) which was first introduced in the 2005-06 budget. The analysis shows that over the last eight years the allocations for women as a proportion of the total budget have remained constant at approximately 5.5 per cent. Further, only about 30 per cent of the demands for grants, or estimates of expenditure, presented by Ministries/departments to the Union government are reported in the GBS.

Further, allocations to the Ministry of Women and Child Development (MWCD), the nodal agency for women in the country, show a marginal increase over the last three years — from Rs. 18,584 crore in 2012-13 to Rs. 21,193 crore in 2014-15. With respect to ‘Women Welfare,’ the allocations actually show a downward trend — from approximately Rs. 930 crore in 2011-12 to around Rs. 920 crore in 2014-15. And almost 87 per cent of the 2014-15 budget of the MWCD was allocated for the Integrated Child Development Services Scheme, leaving only five per cent for schemes exclusively meant for women.

The UN Committee on Elimination of Discrimination against Women has emphasised the need for increased investments for the MWCD and for gender budgets across Ministries. In 2014, following its review of the fourth and fifth periodic reports submitted by the Government of India, the Committee — which monitors States’ implementation of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) — also reiterated the need to strengthen institutions such as the National Commission for Women and the State commissions.

Schemes focussed exclusively on women either received reduced allocations or were not implemented, as seen from the revised estimates for 2013-14 vis-à-vis the budget estimates of the same year. Revised estimate figures are presented for the ongoing fiscal year based on the performance in the first six months of that year. The Domestic Violence Act is a case in point. The legislation, enacted a decade ago, received an allocation of Rs. 20 crore in 2012-13. Revised estimate figures for 2013-14 show zero allocation, which indicates that the scheme launched to operationalise the Act did not take off that year. Renamed SAAHAS, the scheme was allocated Rs. 50 crore last year. The coming budget will reveal how much of this was actually spent.

Other schemes such as restorative justice for rape victims have also seen a decline in allocations. The recent launch of the ‘Beti Bachao Beti Padhao’ scheme by the new government is commendable. Equal attention must now be paid to better implementation of laws and special measures for the most marginalised women, as highlighted in the election manifesto of the Bharatiya Janata Party.

It will also be important to ensure increased spending on all social sectors such as health, education and sanitation, given their impact on women. Women bear the greatest burden of unpaid care work — which includes looking after children and elderly or sick family members, cooking and cleaning. The call to recognise, redistribute and reduce women’s unpaid care work has gained momentum globally. This is therefore an opportune time to increase the quantum of allocations to the social sector.

Positive trend

A positive trend over the past couple of years has been the pre-budget consultations organised by the Ministry of Finance, aimed at ensuring that the voices of women are also heard in the budget making process. This year, in addition to meeting women’s rights organisations, the Ministry also held a dialogue with UN Women along with the MWCD to discuss key issues pertaining to GRB.

In conclusion, the coming budget can serve as a timely course correction. The emphasis must be on the strengthening of key institutions, adequate investments for schemes that address gender concerns and the effective implementation of those schemes.

The coming months will see a greater focus on development issues in general, and gender issues in particular, with the adoption of the post-2015 global development agenda and reviews of countries’ performance vis-à-vis the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action (Beijing+20). The stand-alone goal on gender equality and women’s empowerment in the Sustainable Development Goals is an achievement for women’s rights advocates across the globe. It will, however, remain elusive if not backed by adequate investments. The government’s first full year budget is an excellent chance to recognise missed opportunities and take corrective action.

(Yamini Mishra is Gender Responsive Budget Specialist for Asia Pacific, UN Women, and Dr. Rebecca Reichmann Tavares is the Representative of UN Women’s Multicountry Office (MCO) for India, Bhutan, the Maldives and Sri Lanka.)

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/a-budget-for-women/article6930543.ece

Women in Army | Empoerment

On its 66th Republic Day, during a mighty parade in the national capital, India showcased “woman power” with all-women contingents of the three Services for the first time. A day earlier, Wing Commander Pooja Thakur became the first woman to lead a ceremonial tri-service guard of honour, which the visiting U.S. President inspected. But when it comes to the overall status of women in the Indian armed forces, especially in the Army, all this represents a travesty of gender justice. Since being inducted into the Army in 1992 under the Women Special Entry Scheme (they were in even earlier in the Military Nursing Service from 1927 and in the Medical Officers Cadre from 1943), women Army officers are still denied permanent commission on a par with men: they have to be content with the short service commission. On a batch of petitions filed in 2003 by women officers demanding an end to the discriminatory practice, the Delhi High Court in March 2010 granted their just and fair claim for permanent commission — with the singeing words that it was not some “charity being sought… but enforcement of their constitutional rights”. While this prompted the Air Force and the Navy to grant women officers permanent commission, the Army took a different stand, arguing, among other things, that “the bulk of the army’s Junior Commissioned Officers and other ranks hail from rural India, who are not yet ready to accept a woman as their leader in combat situations”. In an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court in 2012 while appealing against the High Court order, the Army added: “In theory women in the army may sound good but in practical terms the arrangement has not worked well in the Indian Army and as a concept also our society is not prepared to accept women in combat role.”

As the issue remains in the Supreme Court for more than four years now, the Army needs to get real, and persuade itself to go beyond symbolic and cosmetic steps. It needs to recognise women’s capabilities — as many advanced armed forces across the world have done, even committing them to combat roles — and their right to a full-fledged career in the force, on a par with men. During the 14-year short service commission tenure they now enjoy, women officers in various corps are assigned duties similar to those of men officers without distinction, to all possible field units with men officers. If it is the Army’s claim that beyond that point in permanent commission tenure women could be exposed to hostile environments — it has cited “the unique nature of responsibility and organisational requirement that… the Army Act” necessitates — that truly smacks of gender discrimination. The time has come for the Army to end this iniquitous situation.

source: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/going-beyond-symbolism/article6831124.ece

IPC 498-A

Indian Courts had been using IPC 498-A to safeguard the women from facing the cruelty faced by them at their matrimonial home.

9 out of 10 of the cases are always related to dowry, wherein the woman is continuously threatened for want of more money and property which if remains unfulfilled, the married woman is tortured, threatened, abused- both physically and verbally and harassed.

Several cases show that the married woman takes advantage of the section. Many women rights’ groups justify the abuse of this section as being a common feature with all other laws and that also the ratio of false cases to that of true ones as being very low. But this still does not change the truth.

The abuse of this section is rapidly increasing and the women often well- educated know that this section is both cognizable and non-bailable and impromptu works on the complaint of the woman and placing the man behind bars.

Justice must protect the weaker and ensure that the wronged is given a chance to claim back his/her due. When women accuse their husbands under S.498A IPC by making the offence non-bailable and cognizable, if the man is innocent he does not get a chance quickly to get justice.

Misuse of the provision a new legal terrorism can be unleashed. The provision is intended to be used a shield and not an assassin’s weapon.

Therefore, the lawmakers must suggest some way of making this section non-biased to any individual such that the guilty is punished and the person wronged is given justice.