The Supreme Court said anti-dowry laws suffer from both poor enforcement and misuse, allowing the social evil to continue unchecked. Calling dowry eradication a constitutional necessity, the court issued strict directions for faster trials and stronger awareness measures.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has strongly stated that ending the practice of dowry is an urgent constitutional and social requirement in India. The court pointed out that even after having strict laws, dowry continues to exist widely because the law is both ineffective in many cases and misused in others.
The court said that only a focused and collective effort from society, government, and institutions can help remove this deep-rooted social evil.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh passed several important directions while delivering its judgment in a 24-year-old dowry death case.
The court asked all High Courts to find out how many cases related to Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code are still pending, from the oldest to the newest, and to ensure their speedy disposal.
Section 304-B deals with dowry death, while Section 498-A deals with cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a married woman.
The court emphasised that this particular case showed how dowry is not limited to any one religion or community but exists across faiths. It observed that despite laws like the Dowry Prohibition Act, the practice remains common.
The bench noted,
“While on the one hand, the law suffers from ineffectiveness and so, the malpractice of dowry remains rampant, on the other hand, the provisions of this Act (Dowry Prohibition Act) have also been used to ventilate ulterior motives along with Section 498-A, IPC,”
highlighting the double problem faced by courts.
It further said,
“This oscillation between ineffectiveness and misuse creates a judicial tension which needs urgent resolution”.
The Supreme Court was hearing appeals filed by the Uttar Pradesh government against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which had acquitted two accused, including a woman, in a 2001 dowry death case. Allowing the appeals, the top court restored their conviction.
However, considering humanitarian grounds, the court decided not to send the woman convict to jail as she is 94 years old. The male convict was directed to surrender within four weeks to serve the life sentence awarded by the trial court.
The bench observed that although justice was finally delivered in this case, many similar cases never reach this stage.
It said,
“Many, who openly seek and give dowry, go scot-free. It has been noted time and again, in various judicial pronouncements, that DPA (Dowry Prohibition Act), 1961 suffers from various difficulties in its implementation,”
underlining the failure of enforcement.
The Supreme Court stressed the importance of educating future generations about the evil of dowry. It directed governments to make necessary changes in school and college curricula to promote equality in marriage.
The court stated,
“As such, it is directed that states and even the Union government consider changes as are necessary to the educational curricula across levels, reinforcing the constitutional position that parties to a marriage are equal to one another and one is not subservient to the other as is sought to be established by giving and taking of money and or articles at the time of marriage,”
clearly linking education with social reform.
The bench also reminded states that the law provides for the appointment of Dowry Prohibition Officers. It said these officers must be properly appointed, supported, and empowered to perform their duties effectively.
The court directed that their contact details should be widely shared by local authorities so that citizens are aware of whom to approach.
The Supreme Court further directed that police officers and judges handling dowry-related cases must be given regular training.
This training would help them understand the social and psychological aspects involved and ensure sensitivity towards genuine cases while identifying false or abusive complaints.
Referring to the long delay in justice, the bench said,
“It is not lost on us that the instant case began in 2001 and could only be concluded 24 years later by way of this judgment. It is but obvious that there would be many such similar cases,”
expressing concern over prolonged trials.
To address this issue, the court stated,
“The high courts are requested to take stock of the situation, ascertain the number of cases pending dealing with section 304-B, 498-A from the earliest to the latest for expeditious disposal,”
urging immediate administrative action.
The apex court also asked district administrations and district legal services authorities to conduct regular workshops and awareness programmes. These programmes should involve civil society organisations and social activists to bring real change at the grassroots level.
While examining the facts of the case, the bench noted the tragic death of a young woman who lost her life simply because her parents could not meet dowry demands. It observed,
“A coloured television, a motorcycle and Rs 15,000 is all she was apparently worth,”
showing the brutal reality of dowry deaths.
The court warned that dowry cannot be controlled unless it is completely eliminated. It explained how dowry, which started as voluntary gifts meant for a daughter’s financial security, gradually became an institutionalised social practice linked to status and hypergamy.
The bench explained that this system of marrying into a higher social group is connected to caste, kinship, and social pressure. It said,
“This practice of marrying ‘higher up’ traces its origins to caste and kinship, along with, to use a colloquial term, the ‘baggage of the samaj’ that comes with it,”
highlighting deep social conditioning.
Reiterating inclusivity, the court again stated that dowry is not limited to Hindu marriages but exists across religions. It explained the Islamic position on marriage gifts and stated,
“In Islam, dowry, stricto senso, is prohibited. What is prescribed is, in fact, the reverse. ‘Mehr’ is a compulsory gift that the groom is required to give to the bride at the time of marriage,”
clarifying misconceptions.
Concluding its strong observations, the Supreme Court firmly declared,
“The eradication of dowry is an urgent constitutional and social necessity”.
The matter has been listed after four weeks to ensure compliance with the directions issued by the court.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Anti-Dowry Laws
