Supreme Court dowry case order: Why enforcement requires state accountability, better evidence, lawyer explains

Gupta: Implementation is not an overnight task and robust participation is required from all organs of state i.e. legislative, executive and judiciary.

These directions have the effect of SOPs, and accountability mechanisms. I feel collective participation of all concerned will lead to effective implementation.

Directions like Appointment of Dowry Prohibition Officers (DPOs), periodic training of police and judicial officers and grassroots awareness programmes with civil society engagement will lead to paradigm shift in curbing this menace.

Directions like these are meant to curb these kinds of heinous offences and would help to give speedy justice to the innocent victims.

Directions like changes in education curriculum would spread awareness in the younger generation. Directions like Appointment of DPOs would further be helpful in providing immediate help to the aggrieved party.

Often, such directions are not implemented on the ground, how do you see the effectiveness of this?

Gupta: The matter is still sub judice and the Supreme Court has called for compliances from the state and the respective high courts.

It will definitely take time to give effect to the spirit of these directions, but eventually its effectiveness should reflect, at ground level as well.

That being said, effectiveness will hinge on enforcement mechanisms. However, real-world hurdles will always remain, like lack of resources, infrastructure and manpower at the grassroot level. True effectiveness depends on the proactiveness and accountability of enforcement agencies.

How effective are existing laws in curbing dowry related crimes? And why is the conviction rate significantly low? According to the NCRB data from 2017 to 2022, conviction rates are in the 11 % to 17 % range for completed trials.

Gupta: Dowry death cases are mostly based on circumstantial evidence which sometimes do not withstand the parameters required under criminal law to convict a person.

Even though Section 118 (presumption as to dowry death) of the BSA, the court presumes the accused to have caused the dowry death, if it is shown that soon before his wife’s death, accused subjected her to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry.

However, despite thereof, the conviction rate remains low on account of various factors like delay in lodging of FIR, lack of reliable eye-witness statements, non-reporting of previous incidents before death, faulty investigation, lack of independent witnesses, etc.

However, with the advent of technology, and the court’s reliance on electronic evidence such as mobile messages, audio conversations, etc, the odds of convictions have increased significantly.

What are the challenges in proving dowry cases?

Gupta: One of the major challenges is collection of evidence by the police officials. There are rarely direct evidence unless it is a case involving suicide note or electronic evidence or dying declaration.

Sometimes, inordinate delay in lodging of the complaint by the family members also contributes to difficulties in effective prosecution. Absence of independent witnesses e.g. neighbours, house helps, etc, adds to the problem. Delay in trial makes it more difficult to bring home the guilt of the accused.

Do you think in such cases out of court settlement should be permissible?

Gupta: Not at all. Cases of dowry death/abetment of suicide are extremely heinous cases and there should not be any kind of respite in such cases.

Allowing an accused to go scot-free in such cases, would add insult to the injury and would further prove as a detriment in curbing this menace.

Do you see any changes in the nature and in the details of the allegation in recent times?

Gupta: Not really. The crux of the allegations would have to fall within the parameters of “dowry death”. However, a lot of cases are being seen wherein electronic evidence is being heavily relied upon these days.

Can you reflect on such cases when women withdraw the cases against her in-laws and husband?

Gupta: Cases under Section 304B IPC cannot be withdrawn, however, Section 498-A cases can be quashed on the basis of settlement between the parties.

Withdrawal of Section 498A cases can happen for a number of reasons like reconciliation of differences between the parties, amicable settlement on account of parties deciding to part ways, long tenure and multiplicity of litigations, mutual consent, etc.

⁠When it comes to the complaints withdrawal due to family and social pressure, what legal protections exist?

Gupta: Courts tend to thoroughly scrutinise any withdrawal or settlement to ensure that the same is voluntary, genuine and free from undue coercion.

The statements of the aggrieved party are taken in court, affidavits pertaining to voluntary settlement/withdrawal are called, and only thereafter, such matters are put to a quietus.

⁠Section 498A of IPC commonly referred to as the most ‘misused law’, from your experience, how real is this concern compared to genuine cases?

Gupta: It may not be accurate to say that Section 498A (husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) of IPC is the most misused law. There are countless cases where women have to endure injustice in silence.

In fact, sometimes women are not able to file such cases, despite the same being genuine, due to socio-economic factors, stigma attached to such cases, costly and never-ending multiple litigations, etc.

Every case is different and there cannot be any universal generalisation of Section 498-A cases, merely because of misuse in some cases.

The Supreme Court has recently in the case of Janshruti (People’s Voice) Vs. Union of India & Ors., in 2025, dismissed a petition seeking to challenge the constitutionality of s.498-A holding that, “harsh truth is that dowry continues to persist as a deeply entrenched social evil prevalent across vast sections of the country.”