In a strongly-worded judgment on Monday, the Supreme Court highlighted the widespread prevalence of the evil practice of dowry despite legal prohibition on the same [State of UP vs. Ajmal Beg].

A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh said that although the law seeks to prohibit the practice, dowry has persisted in society cloaked as ‘gifts’ and social expectations.

It also remains linked to harassment, cruelty and deaths of women within marriage, the Court said.

In view of the prevailing cases of dowry harassment and death, the Supreme Court issued the following directions to governments, courts and authorities to address awareness, enforcement and long-pending cases:

• States and the Union Government should consider incorporating constitutional values of equality in educational curricula to address dowry at the level of social conditioning;

• There should be proper appointment, empowerment and public visibility of Dowry Prohibition Officers;

• Periodic training should be provided to police officers and judicial officers to sensitise them to the social and psychological dimensions of dowry-related cases and to distinguish genuine cases from misuse;

• High Courts should take stock of long-pending cases under Sections 304B (dowry death) and 498A IPC (cruelty to women by husband or his relatives) and ensure their expeditious disposal;

• District Administrations and District Legal Services Authorities should conduct regular awareness programmes, especially for populations outside the formal education system.

The Court was hearing criminal appeals filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh in a dowry death case.

The appeals arose 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.

The top court set aside the acquittal of the two accused after noting that the High Court had misdirected itself 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 held and restored the conviction and sentence.

The Court rejected the High Court’s reasoning that poverty made the dowry demand improbable.

Such a conclusion does not appeal to reason, the Court said.

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 after noting that she was 94 years old and that imprisonment would serve no fruitful purpose in the attending facts.

Ajmal Beg was directed to surrender within four weeks to serve the sentence awarded by the trial court.

On the practice of dowry, the Bench said that it was at odds with the values enshrined in the Constitution, that is, the constitutional ethos of justice, liberty, and fraternity, and more particularly, Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.

The equality principle is directly undermined by a system that treats women as a source of financial extraction and reinforces structural discrimination, the Bench opined.

It observed that the evil, unless eradicated, can never be contained and what began as a voluntary gift-giving practice for the daughter’s financial independence “morphed into an institutionalised practice”.

Over time, dowry divorced itself entirely from the well-being of women and became a mechanism for valuing grooms through material extraction, the Bench said.

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

The Court also said that dowry is not confined only among Hindus but is prevalent among all communities/ religions.

The judgment said that despite Islamic law prescribing mehr as a compulsory gift from the groom to the bride, social practices in the subcontinent have resulted in dowry being adopted alongside nominal mehr, thereby hollowing out its protective purpose.

The Court observed that this dual system undermines women’s financial security and has been linked to harassment, domestic violence and dowry deaths, cutting across religious boundaries.

It noted that independence was meant to bring not only political freedom but social transformation, and that entrenched customs such as dowry run directly contrary to that constitutional vision.

Thus, it issued directions (mentioned above) for strengthening the enforcement of dowry laws.

The Court directed circulation of the judgment to High Courts and State governments and fixed the matter for further monitoring to ensure compliance.

Advocates Abhishek Saket, Sudeep Kumar, Amruta Padhi, Chanchal Sharma, Manisha and Rupali appeared for the State of Uttar Pradesh.

Advocates Sadhna Sandhu, Shekhar Kumar, Bhanu Pratap Gupta, Shikha Sandhu, Rita Gupta, Nikhil Kumar Sharma and Shantanu Krishna appeared for the respondent-accused.

Advocate Shantanu Krishna appeared as Amicus Curiae for the accused mother-in-law.

[Read Judgment]