Are
Women misusing sexual harassment law?
“Society cannot digest it – the thought that a woman has power, however little, to get back at her oppressors is unbearable”. This is how Seema Sakhare of the Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad describes the furore over section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
A week ago, the Purush Hakk Sanrakshan Samiti, an organisation that came into existence nearly a year ago, held a meeting on the Section. Apart from the by now well known allegation that women ‘misuse’ the Section, several provocative statements were made in response to an article that appeared in a leading Marathi daily. The writer, Meena Deval, wrote critically about the Samiti, asking why men needed protection and questioned the ‘ideology’ behind the organisation.
This set off another controversy about a Section that has been mired in it since it’s formation in 1983. The irony is that women’s organisations and those who insist it is being misused, want it amended – the suggestion being totally opposite.
A decade ago, women’s organisations demanded legislation that would ensure criminal prosecution for crimes against women. The Section is supposed to provide immediate relief in cases of physical and mental torture and can be invoked in cases of murder/abettment to suicide for dowry, harassment for dowry and misappropriation of streedhan, the important inclusion being ‘mental torture’. It is cognisable, non-bailable, non compoundable and imprisonment can be upto three years.
Says Sakhare, “Only women activists know what we went through to bring the Section into existence. We went before the Criminal Law Amendment Committee in 1982 with a mountain of cases which fell through due to the familiar problem – lack of evidence. However, since our arguments carried conviction, this Section was born”.
The Stree Mukti Saghatna’s magazine Lalkari, says, ‘The demand that the relationship between wife and husband needs to be handled delicately not through criminal prosecution belies reality. When a woman is tortured by her in-laws and her husband, relations don’t remain delicate but turn into a cruel parody.’
“It is well known that the Indian woman goes through extremes to prevent her marriage from breaking up. No woman or women’s organisation insists on Section 498A as the first resort, so where is the question of ‘misuse’. Will you ask for the repeal of all those sections in the IPC that are ‘misused’? The family courts, counselling centres, legislation, all have at the core belief that a marriage has to be maintained. But it should not be at the cost of the woman’s life,” added Sakhare.
Women activists point out that the long delay in the cases coming to court lead to untold trauma for women. In the intervening period the woman must be allowed to stay in the matrimonial home and get maintenance for herself and children. Those against the Section want it to be made non-cognisable, bailable and compoundable and amended to allow husbands and in-laws to file proceedings against the woman for demand of property.
Deputy Commissioner of Police, (general Branch) Anant Shinde, says Section 498A is necessary, since it was formed in the context of a specific social framework. Shinde adds that it continues to serve the purpose and misuse may be “marginal”.
The
Forum Against Oppression of Women has provided these numbers to show that
organisations do not misuse Section 498A:
| Year | Organisation | Total Cases |
|
| 1986-96 | Swadhar |
|
|
| 1986-96 | Special Cell |
|
|
| 1986-96 | Stri Mukti Sanghatna |
|
|
| 1986-96 | Women’s Centre |
|
|
| 1986-96 | Mahila Dakshata Samiti |
|
|
At the same meeting, a member of the Special Cell for Women and Children (Dadar police) said that out of the 372 cases that came to her under Section 498A, only two were registered, Ranjana Gaikwad (SCWC, headquarters) gave the all-mumbai cases registered – 1993: 237, 1994:256 1995:254 and 1996:110.
The original Article written by Lina Mathias in Sunday MID-DAY, Dtd. November 22, 1998
|