Holding

The Court held that where the executive fails to implement the Dowry Prohibition Act, a mandamus is appropriate, and directed the Union and States to rigorously enforce the Act, frame pending rules, appoint officers, and promote anti‑dowry awareness.

Summary

The Supreme Court entertained a public interest writ petition under Article 32 seeking mandamus to compel the Union and State governments to enforce the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 more effectively. The petitioners alleged that despite the enactment of the Act and its amendments, the provisions and rules were not being implemented, Dowry Prohibition Officers were not uniformly appointed, and anti‑dowry literacy measures were inadequate. The Court noted that the executive had failed to give effect to sections 3, 4, 6 and the rules framed thereunder, and that mere assurances were insufficient. Relying on the principle that the Court may intervene with mandamus when a statutory duty is not discharged, it issued comprehensive directions to frame pending rules under section 9(2)(b), activate and adequately staff Dowry Prohibition Officers, set up advisory boards, and promote public awareness through media and Lok Adalats. The judgment emphasized the need for a committed machinery and societal awakening to eradicate dowry, and ordered the respondents to file compliance reports. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed and the Court’s directions were made binding.

Issues considered

Whether the Union and State governments have failed to implement the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and its rules.
Whether the Court can issue a mandamus directing the framing of rules under sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
Whether the appointment and activation of Dowry Prohibition Officers and advisory boards is a statutory duty enforceable by the Court.
Whether the executive must be directed to undertake anti‑dowry literacy and publicity measures.

Legislation cited

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961s. 10, s. 3, s. 4, s. 6, s. 8B, s. 9(2)(b)

Subjects

dowry prohibitionmandamusimplementation of statutesstatutory dutyjudicial activismanti‑dowry literacydowry prohibition officerspublic interest litigation

Judgment

A IN RE: ENFORCEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF DOWRY
PROHIBITION ACT, 196 l

MAY 2, 2005

[R.C. LAHOTI, CJ., G.P. MA THUR AND
B P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.]

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961-Non-implementation of-Writ petition-
Supreme Court issuing interim directions for the effective implementation of
C the Act and the Rules, however not effective-Hence, issuance of mandamus
directing implementation ofthe Act and the Rules rigorously and effectively-
Directions issued in addition to interim directions to Union of India and
States to implement sections 3, 4 and the other provisions and various Rules
framed thereunder; activate Dowry Prohibition Officers; frame Rules under
section 9(2)(b); to consider framing of Rules to seek information from males
D seeking Government employment and those already in employment regarding
taking of any dowry and transferring the same to the wife as contemplated
under section 6; and stepping up of Anti Dowry Literacy among people-
Sections 3, 4, 9(2)(b) and 6-Judicial Activism.

Despite the enactment of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and also
E the amendments made to the Act, there was no effective enforcement and
implementation of the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Hence the present writ petition was filed before this Court for issuance of
mandamus directing Central Government and State Government to frame
Rules under sections 9 and 10 of the Act respectively; appointment of
F Dowry Prohibition Officers by State under section 8B and providing
additional functions to be performed by them and furnish details regarding
their working; and setting up of advisory Boards under section 8B and
furnishing details regarding their composition and working. This Court
issued various interim directions and· almost all the States framed Rules
under the Act and appointed Dowry Prohibition Officers and set up
G advisory Boards.
It was contended for the Union of India and the States that they do ........'
not want the evil of dowry to continue and they assured the Court that
every step will be taken by the Governments for implementation of the

H 1020
IN RE: ENFORCEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT } 02 J
Act and the Rules and further steps will be devised for making the Act A
more effective.

Amicus curiae contended that there has been no effective
implementation of the provisions of the Act and the Rules and the evil of
dowry will continue unless directions are issued by this Court; that
__
, direction be passed to give wide publicity to the relevant provisions of the B
Act and Rules; that the Dowry Prohibition Officers be appointed with
,independent charge in each district of the concerned State for strict
enforcement and implementation of the Act and Rules; that the Central
Government be directed to issue Rules under section 9(2)(b) of the Act;
that a legislation be brought for making registration of marriages C
compulsory and furnishing the list of gifts as contemplated by the Act and
the Rules; and that the information may be sought from those seeking
Government employment and those already employed regarding taking
of any dowry at the time of his marriage and transferring of the same to
his wife or her heirs.
D
Allowing the appeal and issuing directions, the Court

HELD : 1.1. When there is failure on the part of the Executive to
strictly implement the law enacted to tackle a social problem of dowry
demand which has assumed menacing proportions, the Court has a duty
to step in with a mandamus to direct implementation of Dowry Prohibition E
Act, 1961 rigorously and effectively. Therefore, it is necessary to step in
and issue some more directions to the respondents in addition to
incorporating the interim directions issued by this Court (1027-F-G)

1.2. The Union of India and the State Governments are directed to
take more effective steps to implement the provisions of the Dowry F
Prohibition Act, 1961 with particular reference to sections 3 and 4 thereof
and the various rules framed thereunder, and also activate the Dowry
Prohibition Officers; to consider whether appropriate rules cannot be
framed for compelling males, seeking govt. employment, to furnish
information on whether they had taken dowry and if taken, whether the G

-
same has been made over to the wife as contemplated by Section 6 of the
Act, calling for such information also from those already in employment;
and to take steps for the effective stepping up of Anti Dowry Literacy
among the people through Lok Adalats, Radio Broadcasts, Television, and
Newspapers. The Central Government is directed to frame rules under
Section 9(2)(b) of the Act if it has not already been framed. The H
1022 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 3 S.C.R.

A respondents are also directed to take steps to ensure that submitting of
the list as contemplated by the Act and the Rules is strictly implemented.
These directions are to be implemented and continue to be implemented
rigorously by the respondents. (1027-G-H; 1028-A-D) 1 ..

Sundaram Iyer v. Thandayeswara Iyer, (1946) Tra LR 224 and
B Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi AIR (1983) SC 826,
referred to.

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition (C) No. 499 of
1997.

C (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)

N.N. Goswami and K. Ramamoorthy, Raj Kumar Mehta, Ms. M. Sharda,
S. Wasim A. Qadri, Ms. Sushma Suri, B.V. Bairam Das, Ms. Krishna Sanna,
V.K. Sidharthan, Atul Kumar, D.S. Mabra, Ms. D. Bharathi Reddy, B. Vikas,
T.V. Ratnam, K. Ram Kumar B.B. Singh Rajesh Srivastava, Ms. Kamini ,_
D Jaiswal, Ms. Shomila Bakshi, Ashok Bhan, Ms. Anil Katiyar, Ms. Hemantika
Wahi, Ms. Subhashini, Sanjay Siwach, T.V. George, Ms. Kavita Wadia, Ranbir
Singh Yadav, J.S. Attri, General for State of H.P., Gopal Prasad, Ashok
Mathur, Sanjay R. Hegde, K.R. Nagaraja, Ms. G. Indira, K.R. Sasiprabhu,
Kh. Nobin Singh, Ms. S. Janani, S.S. Shinde, Mukesh K. Giri, V.N.
E Raghupathy, Ranjan Mukherjee, Satish K. Agnihotri, Rohit K. Singh, Amit \.

Mishra, Upamanyu Hazarika, Satya Mitra, Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Jana Kalyan
Das, V.G. Pragasam, Kuldip Singh, Arun K. Singh, R.S. Suri, Rajeev Shanna,

F
Aruneshwar Gupta, General for State of Rajasthan (NP), K.S. Bhati, Rajiv
Mehta, Biswanath Agrrawalla, R. Ayyam Perumal, S. Vallinayagam, Sewa
Ram, Subramonium Prasad, Ravi P. Mehrotra, Ms. Deepti R. Mehrotra,
Garvesh Kabra, Irshad : .mad, Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Harsh Kumar Puri,
Ujjwal Banerjee, S.K. Puri, Shiv Gupta, Ms. Priya Puri and V.M. Chauhan
-
·~
I

with them for the Appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

G P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, J. The expression 'dowry' in ancient
times applied· to that which a wife brought her husband in marriage, goods
given in marriage or the marriage portion. May be, it was conceived of as a
nest~egg or security for the wife in her matrimonial home, especially since,
niost of the systiems regarde~ a married woman as an addition to her husband's
H fa1nily. But in course of time, it assumed a different shape anq degenerated
IN RE: ENFORCEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT [BALASUBRAMANY AN. J.J l 023

into a subject of barter, acceptance of the woman as a wife depending on A
what her parents would pay as dowry, varying with the qualification and the
status.ofthe bridegroom's family. As felicitously put by Krishnaswami Aiyar,
CJ. on behalf of the Full Bench in Sundaram Iyer v. Thandaveswara Iyer,
1946 Tra LR 224

"But an abuse of the situation soon came into view when the B
bridegroom came to be marketed as a commodity for the value of his
accomplishments and future promises and the high standards of the
scriptural marriage which was a sacrament came to be contaminated
by sordid considerations of immediate monetary gains at the sacrifice
of the abiding purposes of the marriage union." C
The position cannot be said to have improved since then.

2. Possibly, a social revolution is needed to put an end to the menace.
Refusal by the bride's father to pay dowry, refusal of the girls to get married
if dowry is insisted upon and the attaching of a social stigma to those who D
demand dowry, can alone ultimately put an end to this system or at least
reduce its prevalence. Obviously, the enactment of a law prohibiting this evil
should go a long way in tackling the menace. The Parliament in its wisdom
enacted the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (Act No. 28 of 1961 ). The objects
and reasons were set out as follows :-
E
"The object of this Bill is to prohibit the evil practice of giving and
taking of dowry. This question has been engaging the attention of the
Government for some time past, and one of the methods by which
this problem, which is essentially a social one, was sought to be
tackled was by the confennent of improved property rights on women
by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It is, however, felt that a law F
which makes the practice punishable and at the same time ensures
that any dowry, if given does ensure for the benefit of the wife will
go a long way to educating public opinion and to the eradication of
this evil. There has also been a persistent demand for such a law both
in and outside Parliament. Hence, the present Bill. It, however, takes G
care to exclude presents in the form of clothes, ornaments, etc., which

- are customary at marriages, provided the value thereof does not exceed
Rs. 2,000. Such a provision appears to be necessary to make the law
workable."

3. The Act came into force on I. 7.1961. But it was found that even an H
1024 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) 3 S.C.R.

A enacted law did not help in eradicating or at least lessening the menace. This
Court had occasion to ~ay in Shri Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police,
Delhi, A!R (1983) SC 826, that :

"The greed for dowry, and indeed the dowry system as an institution,
calls for the severest condemnation. It is evident that legislative
B measures such as the Dowry Prohibition Act have not met with the
success for which they were designed."

This led to the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act bringing in stringent
cr(minal provisions to combat the menace and to some amendments in the
Dowry Prohibition Act itself giving it more teeth. The objects and reasons for
C the amendment by Act 63 of 1984, were set down as follows :-

"The evil of dowry system, has been a matter of serious concern to
every one in view of its ever-increasing and disturbing proportions.
The legislation on the subject enacted by Parliament, i.e., the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 and the far-reaching amendments which have
D been made to the Act by a number of States during the seventies have
not succeeded in containing the evil. As pointed out by the Committee
on the Status of Women in India, the educated youth is grossly
insensitive to the evil of dowry and unashamedly contributes to its
perpetuation. Government has been making various efforts to deal
E with the problem. In addition to issuing instructions to the State
· Governments and Union Territory administrations with regard to the
making of thorough and compulsory investigations into cases of dowry
deaths and stepping up anti-dowry publicity. Government referred
the whole matter for consideration by a Joint Committee of both the
House of Parliament. The Committee went into the whole matter in
F gre• ' depth and its proceedings have helped in no small measure in
focusing the attention of the public and rousing the consciousness of
the public against this evil."

4. There was a further amendment to the Act by Act 43 of 1986 making
G the provisions more stringent and enhancing the punishment for taking or
abetting the taking of dowry. in spite of all this, it was seen that the
enforcement of the provisions of the Act was thoroughly unsatisfactory and
this is reflected by the filing of this Writ Petition in this Court, in public
interest.
-
H 5. This Writ Petition was filed on 31.7.1997. The main prayers were for
IN RE: ENFORCEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT [BALASUBRAMANY AN, J.] l 025

the issue of writs of mandamus directing the Central Government to frame A
rules under Section 9 of the Act, directing the State Governments to frame
rules under Section 10 of the Act and providing for additional functions to
be performed by the concerned officers under Section SB of the Act, for
appointment of Dowry Prohibition Officers by States as required under Section
SB; to furnish details regarding the working of Dowry Prohibition Officers B
wherever they have been appointed; for setting up of Advisory Boards as
mandated by Section SB of the Act and to furnish details of the composition
of the Boards and their working, if the Boards have already been established
in any particular State and for other incidental reliefs to make the working
of the Act more effective. The prayers are really attuned to bringing about
an atmosphere for more effective and rigorous implementation of the Act and C
for taking steps to spread the message of the Act among the people so as to
educate them on the evils of dowry and the remedies available in cases where
demands for dowry are made.

6. In this Writ Petition, various interim directions were issued. It is not
necessary to quote or refer to the individual orders passed or the individual D
directions issued. In view of the directions thus issued, almost all the States
have framed rules under the Act. Most of them have adopted the model rules
and it is said that only the States of Andhra Pradesh and Orissa have not
adopted the model rules. The Dowry PrJ.~ibition Officers have been appointed
by almost all the States, except it is urged, by the States of Jharkhand and E
Uttaranchal. The State of Jharkhand has filed an affidavit pointing out that
the Superintendents of Police of the District Headquarters have been notified
as District Dowry Prohibition Officers of the concerned district and directed
to perform their duties under the Act. Thus the present plea of the States is
that they have implemented the various directions of this Court and steps
have been taken to effectively implement the provisions of the Act. According F
to the States and the Union of India, all that have to be done by way of
legislation and subordinate legislation have been done and the Advisory Boards
as contemplated by Section SB of the Act have also been constituted.

7. According to the Union of India and the States, though all that is
needed by way of legislation has been done, the purpose of the law has not G
been fully ,,.achieved and the blame for this could not be put- on the

- administration alone. They submitted in one voice, as suggested by the first
Prime Minister of India in this context that:

"Legislation cannot by itself normally solve deep-rooted social
H
1026 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) 3 S.C.R.

A problems. One has to approach them in other ways too, but legislation
is necessary and essential, so that it may give that push and have that
educative factor as well as the legal sanctions behind it which help
public opinion to be given a certain shape."

8. In the context of the developments that have taken place, 1t 1s
B submitted by the amicus curiae appointed by this Court that no serious effort
has been made to implement the provisions of the Act and the Rules and
unless directions are issued by this Court it is highly unlikely that the provisions
of the Act and the Rules will be effectively implemented. It is, therefore,
-
submitted that this Court may direct the Central Government and the State
C Governments to give wide publicity to the relevant provisions of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 and Rules 2 and 3 of the Dowry Prohibition
(Maintenance of Lists of presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985
by appropriate means including educating the student community about the
relevant provisions and the mandatory requirements of the Act and the Rules.
It is further submitted that the State Governments may be directed to appoint
D sufficient number of Dowry Prohibition Officers with independent charge in
each district of the concerned State, commensurate with the population of the
District and to ensure that only dedicated and sincere officers are so appointed.
It is submitted that directions may be issued to the Dowry Prohibition Officers
to take immediate steps for strict enforcement and implementation of the
E provisions of Section 3, 4, 4A and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and
Rules 2 and 3 of the Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of Lists of presents to
the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985.

9. Learned counsel also submits that the Central and State Governments
may be directed to file Compliance Reports in this Court. One of the serious
F aspects pointed out is that the Central Government has not yet framed the
Rules under Section 9(2Xb) of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and a direction
may be issued to the Central Government to frame the necessary rules. It is
also submitted that a direction may be issued to· the Government to consider
bringing in a legislation irrespective of caste or creed making it compulsory
to register marriages and furnish the list of gifts as contemplated by the Act
G and the Rules. Learned counsel also submits that regarding seekers of
Government employment information may be sought for from them whether
one had taken any dowry at the time of his marriage and whether"fte had filed
a declaration as contemplated by the Act, and ifhe has taken dowry, whether
he has transferred it to its wife or her heirs as required by Section 6 of the
-
H Act. Such declarations should be sought for even from those who are already
IN RE: ENFORCEMENT AND !MPLEMENTATION OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT [BALASUBRAMANY AN. J ) } 02 7

employed. Learned amicus curiae submits that unless time bound directions A
are issued by this Court, the implementation of the Act and the Rules and the
consequent rooting out of the evil, will remain as tardy as it has been for
more than 43 years. The Legislation will remain a mirage. Learned counsel
appearing for the Union of India and the States submit that neither the Union
nor the States want the evil of dowry to continue and they assure the Court B
that every step will be taken by the Governments for implementation of the
Act and the Rules and further steps will be devised for making the Act more
effective and the Dowry Prohibition Officers more active with a view to
eradicate the evil. We must say that this argument on behalf of the respondents
could not be accepted at face value, in view of the fact that even today, none
of the respondents is in a position to tell us that the evil has been eradicated C
or brought down in any part of the country. It is also seen that directions have
to be issued even to frame rules and even today rules as contemplated by
Section 9(2)(b) of the Act have not been framed. We are, therefore, satisfied
that the mere recording of the assurances of the Union of India and of the
State Governments would not be adequate in the circumstances. We have
already noticed that this Writ Petition was filed on 31. 7.1997 and in spite of D
the pendency of this Writ Petition in this Court for the last seven years, the
implementation of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder has not become
as effective as one would have wished and it has not been taken up with the
zeal that is expected from the Government while enforcing a legislation like
the one in question brought about with the object of eradicating a social evil. E
It is not as if the menace posed by dowry has in any way lessened. One can
take judicial notice of the fact that cases of dowry harassment are splashed
in newspapers almost every day. Therefore, it is clear that implementation of
the Act and the Rules has not been as effective as it should be.

IO. When there is failure on the part of the Executive to strictly F
implement a law like the one in question, enacted to tackle a social problem
which has assumed menacing proportions, the Court has a duty to step in
with a mandamus to direct its implementation rigorously and effectively. In
that context, we find that it is necessary to step in and issue some more
directions to the respondents in addition to incorporating the directions already G
issued by this Court by way of interim measure as part of this final judgment.

11. Therefore, in addition to directing the respondents to implement all
the interim directions which were issued in this case thus far, we further
direct the Union of India and the States to take more effective steps to
implement the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 with particular H
1028 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005) 3 S.C.R.

A reference to Sections 3 and 4 thereof and the various rules framed thereunder.
In that process, they are also directed to activate the Do~ry Prohibition
Officers. We also direct the Central Government to frame rules under Section
9(2)(b) of the Act if it has not already been framed. We direct the respondents
to take steps to ensure that submitting of the list as contemplated by the Act
B and the Rules is strictly implemented. We direct the Union of India and the
State Governments to consider whether appr<}priate rules cannot be framed
for compelling males, seeking govt. employment, to furnish information on
whether they had taken dowry and if taken, whether the same has been made
over to the wife as contemplated by Section 6 of the Act, calling for such
information also from.those already in employment. Since, it is also necessary
C to arouse the conscience of the people against the demand and acceptance of
dowry, we also direct the Union of India and the State Governments to take
steps for the effective stepping up of Anti Dowry Literacy among the people
through Lok Adalats, Radio Broadcasts, Television, and Newspapers .. These
directions will be implemented and continue to be implemented rigorously
D by the respondents.

12. The conscience of the society needs to be fully awakened to the
evils of the dowry system so that the demand for dowry itself should lead to
loss of face in the society for those who demand it. We have no doubt that
our young and enlightened women would rise to the occasion to fight the evil
E which tends to make them articles of commerce. We also hope that our
educated young males would refuse to be sold in the marriage market and
come forward to choose their partners in life in a fair manner.

13. The establishment of a committed and sincere machinery to
implement the Act and the Rules can hasten the eradication of the evil. The
F Union of India and the State Governments are directed to devise means to
create honest, efficient and committed machinery for the purpose of
implementation of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and the various Rules
framed thereunder.

14. The Writ Petition is allowed in the above manner.
G
N.J. Writ Petition allowed.