2005 Supreme(SC) 758

2005(3) Supreme 739
Supreme Court of India
(Under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India)
R.C. Lahoti, CJI, G.P. Mathur & P.K. Balasubramanyan, JJ.
In Re: Enforcement and Implementation of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
Writ Petition (C) No. 499 of 1997
Decided on 2-5-2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : N.N. Goswami and K. Ramamoorthy, Sr. Advocates, Raj Kumar Mehta, Ms. M. Sharda, S. Wasim A. Qadri, Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocate (NP), B.V. Balram Das, Advocate (NP), Ms. Krishna Sarma, V.K. Sidharthan, Atul Kumar, D.S. Mahra, Ms. D. Bharathi Reddy, B. Vikas, T.V. Ratnam, Advocate (NP), K. Ram Kumar, Advocate (NP), B.B. Singh, Advocate (NP), Rajesh Srivastava, Advocate (NP), Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Ms. Shomila Bakshi, Ashok Bhan, Ms. Anil Katiyar, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. Subhashini, Sanjay Siwach, T.V. George, Ms. Kavita Wadia, Advocate (NP), Ranbir Singh Yadav, Advocate (NP), J.S. Attri, Additional Advocate General for State of H.P., Gopal Prasad, Advocate (NP), Ashok Mathur, Advocate (NP), Sanjay R. Hegde, Advocate (NP), K.R. Nagaraja, Advocate (NP), Ms. G. Indira, K.R. Sasiprabhu, Kh. Nobin Singh, Ms. S. Janani, Advocate (NP), S.S. Shinde, Mukesh K. Giri, V.N. Raghupathy, Advocate (NP), Ranjan Mukherjee, Advocate (NP), Satish K. Agnihotri, Rohit K. Singh, Amit Mishra, Upamanyu Hazarika, Satya Mitra, Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Jana Kalyan Das, V.G. Pragasam, Advocate (NP), Kuldip Singh, Arun K. Sinha, R.S. Suri, Advocate (NP), Rajeev Sharma, Advocate (NP), Aruneshwar Gupta, Additional General for State of Rajasthan (NP), K.S. Bhati, Advocate (NP), Rajiv Mehta, Biswanath Agrrawalla, R. Ayyam Perumal, S. Vallinayagam, Sewa Ram, Subramonium Prasad, Advocate (NP), Ravi P. Mehrotra, Ms. Deepti R. Mehrotra, Garvesh Kabra, Irshad Ahmad, Advocate (NP), Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Addl. Advocate General, Harsh Kumar Puri, Ujjwal Banerjee, S.K. Puri, Shiv Gupta, Ms. Priya Puri and V.M. Chauhan, Advocates.

Important point
Union of India and the State Governments are directed to consider whether the appropriate rules can be framed for compelling males, seeking government service, to furnish information on whether they had taken dowry, and if taken, whether the same has been made over to the wife.

Headnote:Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961—Sections 9, 10, 8B and 6—Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of Lists of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985—Rules 2 and 3—Steps to end the menace of dowry—Writ petition in public interest filed in the Supreme Court—Writ of mandamus to direct Central Government and State Governments to frame Rules, for appointment of Dowry Prohibition Officers as required under Section 8, setting up of Advisory Boards—Pursuant to interim directions issued in this writ almost all States had framed Rules under the Act and Dowry Prohibition Officers had been appointed except by States of Jharkhand and Uttaranchal—Implementation of the Act and Rules had not been as effective as it should have been and thus the court has a duty to step in with a mandamus to direct it’s implementation effectively—Directions issued to Union of India and States to take more effective steps in implementation of the Act, to activate Dowry Prohibition Officers, to frame Rules under Section 9(2)(b) of the Act and to consider whether appropriate Rules could be framed for compelling males, seeking government employment to furnish information if they had taken dowry and whether same has been made over to the wife as contemplated under Section 6 of the Act.

       Held : 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 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 Prohibition Officers have been appointed by almost all the States, except it is urged, by the States of Jharkhand and 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 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 8B of the Act have also been constituted. (Para 6)

       We are 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 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. 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. When there is failure on the part of the Executive to strictly 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 issued by this Court by way of interim measure as part of this final judgment. 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 reference to Sections 3 and 4 thereof and the various rules framed thereunder. In that process, they are also directed to activate the Dowry 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 and the Rules is strictly implemented. We direct the Union of India and the State Governments 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 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 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 by the respondents. (Paras 9 to 11)