Two basic tenants fo Law and Justice are
1. Person is innocent unless proven guilty
2. Thou shall not punish an innocent even if 100 guilty escapes
What 498A prctises is
1. Person is guilty unless proven innocent
2. Thou shall not let escape 1 guilty even if 100s of innocents are punished.
Another point – Whenever any exeption is made to principles and rules (anywhere, a organisation, institute or any other entity), you have to be double sure of preventing its misuse.
It is an EXCEPTION so one puts strict process AND punishement is severe if the exception is misused.
But not for 498A.
First of all it is very difficult to prove innocence under 498A- it is branzely one sided. Even if in rare scenario one is able to prove innocence and that the charges were made to falsely implicate, there is no penlty for accuser.
Let me ask simple question.
A charges B unser a law that has been created by reversing principle of Justice as an exception.
B can get say 7 years of imrisonment under the charge (and that is just direct consequnce, in fact it destroys whole life of B and not only B but others in B’s family).
If B proves the chrges were malintentioned, why should not A get punishment that is at least same as B would have got under charges. Though principles of justice fairly demand much more severe punishment but we do not have even same punishment as B would have got.
That should be the first step in bringing some sanity, rule to 498A.
Else it is worse that “Andher Nagri Chaupat Raja”.