In a harrowing incident that unfolded in Bengaluru, Atul Subhash, a young IT professional ended his life, leaving behind a chilling 24-page suicide note and a 90-minute video. Atul was found hanging with a page sticking to his chest saying, ‘Justice is due‘. He had alleged mental harassment by his wife which pushed him to the brink and alleged the cases filed by his wife were frivolous as he responded to the charges levelled against him in the video. In the law of evidence, it is presumed ‘nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire’, meaning a mortal will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth. Its conclusiveness is to be decided by the courts in bringing the perpetrators to book. The legal process has been set into motion and an FIR has been registered under relevant provisions of Bhartiya Nyaya Samhita (BNS) i.e., Section 108 and Section 3(5), abetment of suicide with common intention, against Atul’s wife and her relatives.
The legal process has been set into motion and an FIR has been registered under relevant provisions of Bhartiya Nyaya Samhita (BNS) i.e., Section 108 and Section 3(5), abetment of suicide with common intention, against Atul’s wife and her relatives.
The disturbing incident should have prompted a collective introspection and a critical evaluation of laws to safeguard against their misuse – a concern raised by the High Court and more recently, the Supreme Court. Justice B.V. Nagrathna had observed that ‘there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498A of the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife‘. In the next paragraph, she clarified the intention of the court and addressed the importance of the provision addressing the instances of cruelty but the same was conveniently overlooked.
Coincidently the judgement was pronounced amidst the raging social media uproar, and the part that could be used as gasoline fuelled the already volatile narrative. The sensationalising of the tragedy by mainstream media and social media effectively baked their loaves of bread on the pyre of Atul Subhash, who was a victim of systematic misuse of the law. The narrative was swiftly hijacked by pages aligned with fundamentalist ideologies propagating Hindutva, with social media algorithms set in default to capture and disseminate right-wing propaganda, as highlighted in the 2021 study ‘Algorithmic Amplification of Politics on Twitter‘.
Social media as our primary source of news consumption acted as a wall between information and misinformation. Further exacerbating the problem was mainstream media joining the divisive charade, reducing what should be meaningful discourse to hollow and polarised outrage vilifying gender justice and feminism. The history of the feminist movement in India is pertinent in shedding light on the issue.
Laws born of struggle: a historical perspective
Laws are not created in isolation; they are born out of a collective demand for justice shaped by the pressing needs of society. Each legislation, especially those with penal sanctions, is a response to the historical comprehension of certain events. Some are rooted in conservative, positivist thought, while others emerge from the struggles of society seeking reform. The insertion of Section 498A (Cruelty against a woman by her husband or his relatives) into the penal statute was an important response to the struggle against epistemic injustice to curb household violence. Since domestic violence is fundamentally a gendered issue rooted in systematic inequalities hence the law addressing it favoured the protection of the victims i.e., the women.
The demand for codified personal laws to address the inequalities was taken up first by the All-India Women’s Commission in the 1930s. The publication of Renuka Roy‘s influential pamphlet Legal Disabilities of Indian Women: A Plea for a Commission of Enquiry also sparked action. The demand led to the creation of a committee headed by Sir B.N Rau, without any women in the committee, submitted its report in 1944. Thereafter another committee was formed which drafted Dr. Ambedkar’s landmark Hindu Code Bill, giving women coparcenary rights, monogamy, and more.
Towering feminists of the freedom movement supported the Bill. Still, the Bill faced fierce opposition from the upper echelons of the political establishment, leading to the dilution of the Hindu Code Bill and eventually the resignation of Dr Ambedkar in protest. The feminist organisations challenged the same but most of the towering feminist leaders were part of the incumbent and the momentum gradually waned.
In 1961, the Dowry Prohibition Act, a loosely drafted and largely ineffective law, was enacted as a token measure to protect women in matrimonial relationships, serving as a poor substitute for substantive reforms in the absence of a feminist movement for two decades as the feminist movement gained momentum in the 70s. Exacerbating the existing social problems, the penetration of capitalism in India commercialised dowry. It transformed into an epidemic that infiltrated the communities where it was never a custom, for instance, among the Dalits.
Exacerbating the existing social problems, the penetration of capitalism in India commercialised dowry. It transformed into an epidemic that infiltrated the communities where it was never a custom, for instance, among the Dalits.
The Shahada Movement of 1973 became one of the landmark feminist movements in independent India propelling society towards parity in all forms. The movement began as resistance by the tribal Bhil landless labourers against land alienation and evolved with women’s participation in social reforms, including campaigns against domestic violence. The women’s collective took to the liquor dens and vandalised the dens as the inebriated men would resort to domestic violence.
The movement resonated deeply with the masses and transformed into a powerful anti-domestic violence campaign that challenged systemic abuse. The Progressive Organisation of Women led the first protest against dowry cruelty in Hyderabad in 1975. The campaign did not gain momentum until the apex court reversed the Bombay High Court Judgement in Tuka Ram and Anrs vs State of Maharashtra acquitting the accused policemen.
In Delhi, several organisations like Stri Sangharsh, Janwadi Mahila Samiti and Mahila Dakshata Samiti struggled towards criminalising dowry-related harassment and death. The Mathura rape case agitation led to the unification of feminist voices against rape and became the conduit to actual actions leading to the Criminal Amendment Act of 1983 making provision for cruelty in the penal code, amending the Evidence Act, and mandatory postmortem examination of women who died in early marriage. The Criminal Amendment Act of 1986 inserted the provision of Dowry Death in the penal statute.
The current discourse and remedy
Men’s suicide is a real problem. According to the International Institute for Population Sciences, Indian men are at 2.5 times more risk than women to die by suicide. According to NCRB data from 2021, approximately 1 lakh men died by suicide across all age groups, marital status, education, or profession. The present discourse of men’s rights devolving into vilifying parity is a testimony of deep-seated patriarchy and misogyny in Indian society and needless to say would not help in the prevention of men’s suicide.
It is unassailable to say that misuse of the law will always be a concern but the fact that unless gender parity is not achieved the law cannot be obsolete. According to the Global Gender Gap Report 2024, the predictions of parity are grim as the report predicts that ‘it will take 134 years to reach full parity – roughly five generations beyond the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) target.’
The NCRB’s statistics on domestic violence especially the acquittal rates and the compounding of the non-compoundable offences are fervently cited, often sparking heated debates around the issue. However, the critical nuance of the alarmingly high acquittal rates is that it might not stem from the culpability but from a botched investigation that inadvertently favours the accused. By their very nature, domestic violence cases are susceptible to evidentiary gaps and often fear or coercion.
By their very nature, domestic violence cases are susceptible to evidentiary gaps and often fear or coercion.
Senior Advocate Indira Jaising writes ‘without analysing the cause of acquittal, sympathy for the husband’s family is misplaced … one fails to see wives have been cast as vindictive in accessing criminal law. Civil law is notoriously expensive. If anything, statistics point to a dysfunctional and moribund legal system‘.
In a catena of precedents, the judiciary has often taken a divergent stance on domestic violence, labelling the provision as a tool of “weaponisation” or “legal terrorism” and more. The judiciary must transcend the surface of interpersonal conflicts and delve into the deeper subliminal factors shaping the everyday realities of women’s lives. A sensitive, informed, and morally upright judiciary is the best legal armour against injustice. The allegations by Atul Subash against the presiding officer must be inquired to keep intact the people’s faith in the judiciary. The officers of the court, the lawyers, are equally responsible for calling a spade a spade and striving to bridge the gap between the legal provisions and the lived experiences.
