Supreme Court Cracks Down on Dowry, Issues Stringent Enforcement Directions

In a strongly worded judgment delivered on Monday, the Supreme Court highlighted the continued prevalence of the social evil of dowry despite its statutory prohibition, noting that the practice often survives under the cloak of “gifts” and social expectations (State of Uttar Pradesh vs Ajmal Beg).

 

A Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh observed that although the law seeks to eliminate dowry, it remains deeply entrenched in society and is closely linked to harassment, cruelty and deaths of women within marriage.

 

In view of the continuing incidence of dowry-related harassment and deaths, the Court issued a series of directions to governments, courts and authorities to strengthen awareness, enforcement and the disposal of long-pending cases:

 

• The States and the Union Government should consider incorporating constitutional values of equality into educational curricula to address dowry at the level of social conditioning;
  
  
• Dowry Prohibition Officers must be properly appointed, empowered and given adequate public visibility;
  
  
• Periodic training should be provided to police and judicial officers to sensitise them to the social and psychological dimensions of dowry-related cases and to help distinguish genuine cases from misuse;
  
  
• High Courts should review long-pending cases under Sections 304B (dowry death) and 498A IPC (cruelty by husband or his relatives) and ensure their expeditious disposal;
  
  
• District Administrations and District Legal Services Authorities should conduct regular awareness programmes, particularly for populations outside the formal education system.
  
  

The Court was hearing criminal appeals filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh arising from the death of a 20-year-old woman who had been married for just over a year and was repeatedly subjected to demands for a colour television, a motorcycle and ₹15,000 in cash.

 

The trial court had convicted her husband, Ajmal Beg, and his mother, Jamila Beg, under Sections 304B and 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Allahabad High Court, however, reversed the conviction in 2003.

 

Setting aside the acquittal, the Supreme Court held that the High Court had misdirected itself both in law and on facts. “The High Court has erred in setting aside the judgment of conviction returned by the Additional District Judge, Bijnor,” the Bench said, restoring the conviction and sentence.

 

The Court rejected the High Court’s reasoning that poverty rendered the dowry demand improbable, stating that such a conclusion “does not appeal to reason”. It also clarified that the Dowry Prohibition Act does not distinguish between demands made before or after marriage.

 

While restoring the conviction of both accused, the Court refrained from incarcerating Jamila Beg, noting that she was 94 years old and that imprisonment would serve no fruitful purpose in the facts of the case. Ajmal Beg was directed to surrender within four weeks to serve the sentence awarded by the trial court.

 

On the broader issue of dowry, the Bench held that the practice runs contrary to the constitutional ethos of justice, liberty and fraternity, and in particular violates Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law. The principle of equality, the Court said, is directly undermined by a system that treats women as a source of financial extraction and reinforces structural discrimination.

 

The Court observed that what began as a voluntary gift-giving practice intended to ensure a daughter’s financial independence had “morphed into an institutionalised practice”. Over time, dowry became a mechanism for valuing grooms through material extraction, entirely divorced from women’s well-being.

 

“What all of this translates to is a systemic bias against women—pervasive across all sections of society -- grossly undervaluing them,” the Court said.

 

It further noted that dowry is not confined to any one religion or community. Despite Islamic law prescribing mehr as a mandatory gift from the groom to the bride, social practices in the subcontinent have resulted in dowry being adopted alongside a nominal mehr, thereby hollowing out its protective purpose. This dual system, the Court observed, undermines women’s financial security and has been linked to harassment, domestic violence and dowry deaths across religious boundaries.

 

Emphasising that independence was meant to usher in not only political freedom but also social transformation, the Court said entrenched customs such as dowry run directly contrary to the constitutional vision.

 

The judgment has been directed to be circulated to all High Courts and State governments, and the matter has been listed for further monitoring to ensure compliance with the directions issued.

 

For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.