Frame charges in 90 days, no adjournments: Supreme Court issues 10 directions to speed up dowry, cruelty trials

The Supreme Court recently directed courts and governments to take several measures to speed up trials in dowry-related cases and improve enforcement of laws dealing with dowry deaths and cruelty against women [The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ajmal Beg Etc.]. .In an order passed on August 20, a Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and AG Masih issued ten directions covering institutional support, awareness, monitoring of cases, trial timelines, adjournments, technology, High Court reviews, training and periodic compliance reporting.They directions include: Priority for dowry cases: Courts dealing with offences under Sections 304B (dowry death) and 498A (cruelty to wife) of the Indian Penal Code, corresponding to Sections 80 and 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, should, as far as practicable, treat them as priority cases. Cases pending for over three years: District judiciaries should identify such cases, particularly those pending at the stage of framing of charges or recording of evidence, and periodically monitor their progress. Time-bound trials: Trial courts should endeavour to frame charges within 60 to 90 days of the filing of the chargesheet. Evidence should begin within a reasonable period after charges are framed and, as far as possible, be recorded continuously or on a day-to-day basis. Fewer adjournments: Courts should discourage unnecessary adjournments and record reasons whenever one is granted. Where an accused’s counsel repeatedly remains absent without sufficient cause, legal aid counsel or an amicus may be appointed. Witness calendars: Trial courts should prepare calendars for the examination of material witnesses after charges are framed, with investigators ensuring timely service of summons and production of witnesses. Digital monitoring: High Courts should endeavour to use their existing court-management systems to track the stage-wise pendency of dowry cases and generate alerts for old matters. Review by High Courts: High Courts should periodically review old criminal appeals, revisions, petitions under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS and bail matters involving dowry related offences, particularly where trial proceedings have been stayed. Training and specialised prosecution: States and High Courts should conduct regular training for judicial officers, police officials, prosecutors, protection officers and counsellors. States may also designate prosecutors experienced in offences against women to handle such cases. Support and awareness: States and Union Territories should strengthen one stop centres, family counselling centres, women help desks, victim assistance mechanisms, helplines and online grievance redressal systems. They should also conduct sustained awareness programmes on dowry, gender equality, constitutional values and women’s rights. Periodic compliance: High Courts and States/Union Territories must file status reports until the pendency of cases under the relevant provisions is substantially reduced.The Court also directed that the reports should contain details of case pendency and disposal, the stage of pending cases, awareness initiatives, appointment of dowry prohibition officers and training programmes conducted..The directions came while the Court was monitoring compliance with its December 2025 judgment in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ajmal Beg, in which it had highlighted the continued prevalence of dowry and called for steps to improve enforcement of the law.That judgment arose from the death of a 20-year-old woman who had been married for just over a year and was allegedly 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 (dowry death) and 498A (cruelty by husband and his family) IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Allahabad High Court later overturned their convictions..The Supreme Court subsequently restored the convictions, holding that the High Court had erred in its assessment of the evidence. It also directed a series of measures aimed at tackling delays and improving enforcement of dowry laws.The case had begun in 2001 and took 24 years to reach its conclusion before the Supreme Court. It was this delay that prompted the Court to ask High Courts to take stock of old cases involving dowry death and cruelty..In its December 2025 judgment, the Court had also directed States and the Union government to consider changes to educational curricula to reinforce gender equality and awareness about dowry. It had asked States to ensure that dowry prohibition officers are properly appointed, trained and accessible to citizens.Pursuant to those directions, affidavits and data were filed before the Supreme Court by several High Courts, States and Union Territories. The present order records that the material was consolidated and analysed for the Court’s consideration..The Bench has now directed the matter to be listed on October 15 along with the compliance reports..[Read Order]