Brinda Karat’s adverse
comments about the recent Supreme Court judgment and the
coverage The Hindu gave her remarks and the outrage that has followed ever since is a good example of how easy it is to mislead an ignorant and gullible public and whip up hysteria without reason.
Content of letters published over the last two days about this matter (here and here) has been unbelievable and makes me want to tell all these people to do some basic research before shooting off their comments to the paper. What is more remarkable is the paper’s readiness to publish these completely baseless and misguided comments for two consecutive days in a row provoking any average and ignorant reader into thinking that some grossly unjust and outrageous act has just been perpetrated by the Supreme Court.
The relevant provision of the Indian Penal Code is here and the court judgment is here. One look at both will tell you why Karat’s remarks are unreasonable. Section 498A deals with harassment of a woman for dowry and the word cruelty is defined accordingly. I quote the definition below:
(a) Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her meet such demand.]
Thus, any harassment of the woman has to meet two conditions to be termed cruel for the purpose of this provision: (1) it must be grave or endanger her life or drive her to commit suicide or (2) it must involve harassment related to a demand for dowry.
The case in question related to a bitter quarrel between a woman on the one side and her husband and in-laws on the other that had absolutely nothing to do with dowry! Secondly, the court found that she was kicked by her mother-in-law but no evidence was ever presented of any grave or life threatening injury and the harassment again did not relate to any demand for dowry. The argument that raising the possibility of divorce with the wife/daughter-in-law amounts to cruelty is laughable (If that is so, how is a warring couple going to get a divorce if even the mere mention of that possibility to the wife ends up getting the husband or in-laws in jail?). Is it any surprise then that when all the elements of the offense are clearly missing, the court declared that the case has nothing to do with section 498A and the woman’s complaints do not amount to cruelty?
What Brinda Karat and the National Federation of Indian Women (which has petitioned the Chief Justice of India for review) are asking is for the court to abuse its power under this provision and throw a husband/in-laws who have not demanded any dowry into jail. At the very least, the patently false allegation needs to be condemned. Instead, having published this news item without sufficient explanation of its context, the paper is sitting out the controversy editorially even as considerable space is being provided to ill-informed readers to vent their anger against the court. If this is a deliberate effort, the campaign could not be termed anything short of malicious.