Dowry Prohibition : Plea To Retain Jewellery & Property Given To Wife In Her Name For At Least 7 Years - Supreme Court Asks Law Commission To Consider Suggestions
story
On a writ petition seeking certain concrete directions in order to curb the social evil of dowry, the Supreme Court on Monday observed that it may be appropriate if the Law Commission of India considers the issue in all its perspectives.The Court disposed of the writ petition granting liberty to the petitioners to submit a note of research on all relevant aspects for the benefit of the...
Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
On a writ petition seeking certain concrete directions in order to curb the social evil of dowry, the Supreme Court on Monday observed that it may be appropriate if the Law Commission of India considers the issue in all its perspectives.
The Court disposed of the writ petition granting liberty to the petitioners to submit a note of research on all relevant aspects for the benefit of the Law Commission on which further steps to consider the scope for legislative reforms may be duly considered.
"No doubt dowry is a social evil. But look at the prayers- designate a dowry prohibition officer akin to an RTI officer- the court cannot do that, the RTI officer is also designated under a central legislation...the second payer is for jewellery and other property given on marriage to remain in the name of the woman for atleast 7 years. This also is very valid and the legislature will consider it very seriously...the third prayer is to constitute a curriculum commission for a proper pre-marriage course, involving legal experts, educationists, psychologists, sexoligists, so that individuals undergo marriage counselling prior to entering in marriage, and to make this course a mandate for marriage registration. There are actually communities which follow this system of counselling. You can address all this to the law commission so it can look into it and suggest modifications to strengthen the law", Justice D. Y. Chandrachud told Advocate V. K. Biju.
Mr. Biju insisted that a similar issue is pending before another bench of the Supreme Court, on which notice was issued on November 8, and that the Court may consider issuing notice atleast to the extent of the third prayer as regards a curriculum commission- "I am totally disturbed by situation in Kerala- one police officer was recently suspended for not taking action in a dowry case of a doctor. And this is the situation of the educated, so imagine that of the poor! So much jewellery, so much gold is to be given! Children of the poor and the daily wagers are suffering!", the counsel argued.
"Nothing will come out of notice. the law commission can look at what suggestions can be made to strengthen the dowry prohibition law to make it more effective, instead of us just issuing notice", said Justice Chandrachud.
Justice A. S. Bopanna also said, "We agree that it is a very important issue, and it is important that everybody is sensitised to the issue. But you will be wasting time in court after the notice is issued."
"And we will say that you raise a very substantial grievance but it is something for the legislature to see. We can set in motion the initiation of the process for legislative reforms", said Justice Chandrachud.
"And the third prayer is the most difficult to grant! India resides not only in Kerala, Delhi, Calcutta etc, but in small villages also. For this curriculum commission, there would be no experts in villages, people would have to go to cities for the pre-marriage course. And it will have a very serious consequence if we say marriage will not be registered if the course is not undergone! A hapless woman from a village who has not attended the course, her marriage would not be registered! These are matters imminently for the legislature to decide, to give more teeth to the law. Like the SC/ST Act was amended repeatedly to give it more teeth...", reflected Justice Chandrachud.
"Also, while a law if ofcourse a necessity, change has to come from within also- as to how we treat women, how the society regards a woman who comes into the family or who a man marries. This concerns the social basic value of marriage as an institution. This also requires a real social change which reformers have done and continue to do", continued the judge.
The bench then proceeded to dictate its order-
"Invoking the jurisdiction of this court under Article 32 of the Constitution, petitioners who are social activists and a lawyer practising before the Supreme Court have sought certain concrete directions in order to curb the social evil of dowry. The third petitioner has in fact stated that while she is a member of the bar, she has also been the victim of a dowry related case on which aspect it is not necessary for this court to express any view. The petitioner has highlighted that while on the one hand, Parliament has stepped in by enacting legislation in terms of penal provisions such as section 304B and 498A of IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and by the formation of the National Commission for Women, the persistence of the social evil requires a fresh look by the concerned authorities so as to bring more teeth to the legislation.
At this stage, it would be material to refer to the relief which has been sought in these proceedings which are extracted below (...).
During the course of the hearing, the court has indicated that the relief which had been sought in the above terms pertain to the realm of legislative policy. Hence, while there may be certain restrictions on the jurisdiction of this court under Article 32 to craft remedies which require legislative reform, at the same time, the process of considering what measures would support the already existing legislation on the subject may be initiated. It is in this backdrop, we are of the view that it may be appropriate if the Law commission of India considers the issue in all its perspectives. The petitioner is at liberty to submit a note of research on all relevant aspects for the benefit of the law commission on which further steps to consider the scope for legislative reforms may be duly considered. With the above observation and the grant of liberty to the petitioner, we dispose off the petition."
Case Title: Sabu Steephen v. Union of India
Click Here To Read/Download Order