Justice before judgement!A citizens appeal for equal protection 🙏
Justice before judgement!A citizens appeal for equal protection 🙏
The Issue
Justice Before Judgment: A Citizens' Appeal for Equal Protection, Due Process and Safeguards in Matrimonial Criminal Proceedings
To:
The Hon'ble Chief Justice of India
Supreme Court of India, New Delhi
And
The Hon'ble Chairperson
Law Commission of India, New Delhi
Respected Sir/Madam,
Men are human beings too — with families, parents, careers, education, dreams and responsibilities of their own. They can suffer. They can be victims. And, just as much as anyone else, they can be wrongfully accused. When a woman genuinely faces cruelty, domestic violence or dowry harassment, society is right to demand justice for her. But when a man is wrongly implicated in a criminal proceeding, does his dignity, his liberty, his future matter any less? We don't think it should.
This petition is not directed against women, nor against genuine victims, and it is not a plea for immunity from the law. What it asks for is far simpler: that an allegation be investigated, that evidence be examined, that guilt be proved before punishment is meted out — not the other way around.
1. Supreme Court's Warnings and Precedents on False/Misused Cases
The concerns raised here are not drawn from social media outrage or political rhetoric. They come from the Supreme Court's own jurisprudence.
In Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar, the Court examined vague and general allegations levelled against a husband's relatives and warned that permitting such allegations to proceed unchecked risks abuse of legal process — a principle that later benches have repeatedly relied upon.
In several subsequent cases, proceedings were quashed precisely because the allegations against relatives were general, omnibus, and unsupported by any specific role or incident attributed to the individual accused.
What emerges from these judgments is a fairly straightforward proposition: simply being someone's husband, father, mother, brother or sister should not, on its own, expose a person to criminal liability where no specific individual role has been shown.
2. Statistical Reality and the Ground Reality of False Cases
To understand the gravity of false implication, one must look at the objective data and conviction trends:
Abysmal conviction rates: Official crime statistics, including those from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) over the years, consistently show that the conviction rate in matrimonial criminal disputes (such as Section 498A) remains dismally low, often plunging well below 15–20%.
The high rate of acquittals: This persistently low conviction rate reflects a massive quantitative gap between initial criminal filings/arrests and actual proven guilt in a court of law, proving that a significant volume of cases fail judicial scrutiny due to a lack of genuine evidence.
Process as punishment: When cases are filed based on omnibus allegations that ultimately result in acquittals, it demonstrates that the legal system is frequently weaponized, turning the process itself into the punishment.
3. The Dangers of "Process as Punishment" and Implicated Families
A criminal case rarely begins and ends with a verdict. Long before any judgment, an accused person may already be living through police investigation, the fear or fact of arrest, repeated court appearances, mounting legal costs, lost jobs, interrupted education, reputational damage, social stigma, and years of uncertainty hanging over their family.
This is why the safeguards around arrest and investigation are not mere procedural niceties — they exist to protect personal liberty and human dignity. The Supreme Court has said, more than once, that investigating agencies must not arrest mechanically in matrimonial cases, and that the safeguards laid down in Arnesh Kumar must be followed in practice, not just in principle.
Furthermore, a matrimonial dispute, at its core, usually involves two people. Yet criminal proceedings can extend far beyond them — to parents, siblings, and other relatives. An elderly parent living in another city, a sister with her own household and career, or a brother should not face criminal prosecution simply because their name appears in a complaint without specific individual involvement.
4. Our Specific Concerns
Vague and omnibus allegations — Proceedings should not continue against individuals where the allegations are general, collective, or unsupported by facts specific to their own conduct.
Automatic implication of relatives — Parents, siblings and other relatives should not be prosecuted merely by virtue of their relationship to the accused.
Unnecessary arrest — Arrest must not become an automatic response to a matrimonial allegation; the safeguards recognised by the Supreme Court need to be strictly followed.
Disputed live-in relationships — Where the nature of a relationship itself is contested, there should be clear, objective criteria before matrimonial criminal provisions are invoked.
Prolonged litigation — Where a case lacks a sound legal foundation, individuals should not be made to endure years of proceedings and stigma regardless.
Protection of Article 21 — The right to life, dignity and personal liberty must remain meaningful throughout investigation and prosecution, not just on paper.
5. Our Demands
We respectfully ask the competent authorities to consider:
Clear legal criteria for determining when a live-in relationship qualifies as one "in the nature of marriage" for the purposes of matrimonial criminal provisions.
Strict compliance with arrest safeguards, in line with Arnesh Kumar and the decisions that followed it.
Meaningful preliminary scrutiny, wherever the law allows, in cases involving disputed relationship status, before any coercive action is taken.
Individualised prosecution — no relative should be implicated purely on the basis of their relationship to the principal accused; specific allegations and material evidence of individual conduct should be required.
Reasoned coercive action — where arrest or similar action is deemed necessary, the reasons should be properly recorded and open to oversight.
Vigilance against abuse of process, particularly proceedings built on vague or omnibus allegations that don't disclose any specific criminal role.
Full protection of Article 21 — life, dignity and personal liberty.
A Law Commission review of whether further statutory safeguards, definitions or procedural mechanisms are needed as matrimonial criminal provisions increasingly extend to relationships outside formal marriage.
Equal protection for genuine victims and accused persons alike — nothing in this petition should be read as opposing lawful action against genuine perpetrators of cruelty, domestic violence, dowry harassment, or any other offence.
A Message to Every Family
You might have a son, a daughter, or both. An elderly mother or father. A brother or sister. Any one of them could, one day, find themselves caught up in a serious legal dispute. In that moment, you would not want society asking "which gender is involved?" You would want it asking, simply, "what does the evidence say?" That is the justice system this petition is asking for.
This is a call against injustice, against punishment before proof, against vague and indiscriminate criminalisation — and for constitutional liberty and evidence over assumption. Above all, it is a call for justice without a gender exception
Initiated by:
Debdatta Misra
Student & Human's Rights Activist
Volunteer, Abhiyan Voice For Men
Kolkata, West Bengal, India
Citizen Endorsement
By signing this petition, I support the call for equal protection, due process, personal liberty and appropriate safeguards in matrimonial criminal proceedings — while fully supporting legal protection for genuine victims of cruelty, domestic violence, dowry harassment and other offences.
Name: ______________________________
City / State: _________________________
Email (optional): _____________________
Signature: ___________________________
Date: ________________________________
7
The Issue
Justice Before Judgment: A Citizens' Appeal for Equal Protection, Due Process and Safeguards in Matrimonial Criminal Proceedings
To:
The Hon'ble Chief Justice of India
Supreme Court of India, New Delhi
And
The Hon'ble Chairperson
Law Commission of India, New Delhi
Respected Sir/Madam,
Men are human beings too — with families, parents, careers, education, dreams and responsibilities of their own. They can suffer. They can be victims. And, just as much as anyone else, they can be wrongfully accused. When a woman genuinely faces cruelty, domestic violence or dowry harassment, society is right to demand justice for her. But when a man is wrongly implicated in a criminal proceeding, does his dignity, his liberty, his future matter any less? We don't think it should.
This petition is not directed against women, nor against genuine victims, and it is not a plea for immunity from the law. What it asks for is far simpler: that an allegation be investigated, that evidence be examined, that guilt be proved before punishment is meted out — not the other way around.
1. Supreme Court's Warnings and Precedents on False/Misused Cases
The concerns raised here are not drawn from social media outrage or political rhetoric. They come from the Supreme Court's own jurisprudence.
In Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar, the Court examined vague and general allegations levelled against a husband's relatives and warned that permitting such allegations to proceed unchecked risks abuse of legal process — a principle that later benches have repeatedly relied upon.
In several subsequent cases, proceedings were quashed precisely because the allegations against relatives were general, omnibus, and unsupported by any specific role or incident attributed to the individual accused.
What emerges from these judgments is a fairly straightforward proposition: simply being someone's husband, father, mother, brother or sister should not, on its own, expose a person to criminal liability where no specific individual role has been shown.
2. Statistical Reality and the Ground Reality of False Cases
To understand the gravity of false implication, one must look at the objective data and conviction trends:
Abysmal conviction rates: Official crime statistics, including those from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) over the years, consistently show that the conviction rate in matrimonial criminal disputes (such as Section 498A) remains dismally low, often plunging well below 15–20%.
The high rate of acquittals: This persistently low conviction rate reflects a massive quantitative gap between initial criminal filings/arrests and actual proven guilt in a court of law, proving that a significant volume of cases fail judicial scrutiny due to a lack of genuine evidence.
Process as punishment: When cases are filed based on omnibus allegations that ultimately result in acquittals, it demonstrates that the legal system is frequently weaponized, turning the process itself into the punishment.
3. The Dangers of "Process as Punishment" and Implicated Families
A criminal case rarely begins and ends with a verdict. Long before any judgment, an accused person may already be living through police investigation, the fear or fact of arrest, repeated court appearances, mounting legal costs, lost jobs, interrupted education, reputational damage, social stigma, and years of uncertainty hanging over their family.
This is why the safeguards around arrest and investigation are not mere procedural niceties — they exist to protect personal liberty and human dignity. The Supreme Court has said, more than once, that investigating agencies must not arrest mechanically in matrimonial cases, and that the safeguards laid down in Arnesh Kumar must be followed in practice, not just in principle.
Furthermore, a matrimonial dispute, at its core, usually involves two people. Yet criminal proceedings can extend far beyond them — to parents, siblings, and other relatives. An elderly parent living in another city, a sister with her own household and career, or a brother should not face criminal prosecution simply because their name appears in a complaint without specific individual involvement.
4. Our Specific Concerns
Vague and omnibus allegations — Proceedings should not continue against individuals where the allegations are general, collective, or unsupported by facts specific to their own conduct.
Automatic implication of relatives — Parents, siblings and other relatives should not be prosecuted merely by virtue of their relationship to the accused.
Unnecessary arrest — Arrest must not become an automatic response to a matrimonial allegation; the safeguards recognised by the Supreme Court need to be strictly followed.
Disputed live-in relationships — Where the nature of a relationship itself is contested, there should be clear, objective criteria before matrimonial criminal provisions are invoked.
Prolonged litigation — Where a case lacks a sound legal foundation, individuals should not be made to endure years of proceedings and stigma regardless.
Protection of Article 21 — The right to life, dignity and personal liberty must remain meaningful throughout investigation and prosecution, not just on paper.
5. Our Demands
We respectfully ask the competent authorities to consider:
Clear legal criteria for determining when a live-in relationship qualifies as one "in the nature of marriage" for the purposes of matrimonial criminal provisions.
Strict compliance with arrest safeguards, in line with Arnesh Kumar and the decisions that followed it.
Meaningful preliminary scrutiny, wherever the law allows, in cases involving disputed relationship status, before any coercive action is taken.
Individualised prosecution — no relative should be implicated purely on the basis of their relationship to the principal accused; specific allegations and material evidence of individual conduct should be required.
Reasoned coercive action — where arrest or similar action is deemed necessary, the reasons should be properly recorded and open to oversight.
Vigilance against abuse of process, particularly proceedings built on vague or omnibus allegations that don't disclose any specific criminal role.
Full protection of Article 21 — life, dignity and personal liberty.
A Law Commission review of whether further statutory safeguards, definitions or procedural mechanisms are needed as matrimonial criminal provisions increasingly extend to relationships outside formal marriage.
Equal protection for genuine victims and accused persons alike — nothing in this petition should be read as opposing lawful action against genuine perpetrators of cruelty, domestic violence, dowry harassment, or any other offence.
A Message to Every Family
You might have a son, a daughter, or both. An elderly mother or father. A brother or sister. Any one of them could, one day, find themselves caught up in a serious legal dispute. In that moment, you would not want society asking "which gender is involved?" You would want it asking, simply, "what does the evidence say?" That is the justice system this petition is asking for.
This is a call against injustice, against punishment before proof, against vague and indiscriminate criminalisation — and for constitutional liberty and evidence over assumption. Above all, it is a call for justice without a gender exception
Initiated by:
Debdatta Misra
Student & Human's Rights Activist
Volunteer, Abhiyan Voice For Men
Kolkata, West Bengal, India
Citizen Endorsement
By signing this petition, I support the call for equal protection, due process, personal liberty and appropriate safeguards in matrimonial criminal proceedings — while fully supporting legal protection for genuine victims of cruelty, domestic violence, dowry harassment and other offences.
Name: ______________________________
City / State: _________________________
Email (optional): _____________________
Signature: ___________________________
Date: ________________________________
Petition Updates
Share this petition
Petition created on 18 August 2026