A wedding ceremony in Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, was recently called off after the groom allegedly demanded a car and ₹20 lakh in cash moments before the rituals began. The bride refused to proceed with the marriage, following which the police took the groom and his relatives into custody. Her brave decision was widely applauded.
Earlier in November, in Muzaffarnagar, another groom, Awadhesh Rana, drew national praise after publicly returning ₹31 lakh in dowry money with folded hands. His gesture was hailed as a symbolic censure of dowry seekers.
Among innumerable greedy dowry seekers-responsible for the deaths of countless brides-a lone Rana's thoughtful act is celebrated.
Dowry, however, continues to claim the lives of innocent women across far-flung regions of India
The Supreme Court's recent intervention (December 15)-calling dowry "an urgent constitutional and social necessity" to eradicate, while flagging both the "ineffectiveness" and "misuse" of existing laws-is therefore welcome.
Yet the question remains: can judicial energy alone dismantle what centuries of social practice and weak enforcement have entrenched?
Dowry Still Flourishes
India has progressed in several spheres over the past few decades, but advances in technology and infrastructure cannot be mistaken for true development when a social evil like dowry continues to thrive.
Data points to a troubling rise in dowry-related cases from the late 1980s to the present-an embarrassment for Indian society. According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), over 6,100 women died in dowry-related cases in 2023. Between 2017 and 2022, an average of 7,000 dowry deaths were reported annually
In contrast, conviction rates remain abysmally low, often hovering between 11 and 17 per cent.
Despite literacy improving from 43.6 per cent in the 1980s to 80.9 per cent in 2025, dowry cases continue to rise. This exposes a glaring disconnect between education and social reform.
Although laws such as the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code exist, dowry persists due to deeply entrenched social and economic factors.
Why The Court's Push Matters
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N K Singh addressed the issue while convicting a man and his 94-year-old mother in a dowry death case. A 20-year-old woman was burnt to death in 2001 for failing to meet demands for a colour television, a motorcycle and ₹15,000 in cash. Bringing the case to a close after nearly a quarter of a century, the court sentenced the husband to life imprisonment but spared the mother due to her advanced age.
The bench expressed concern over the inordinate delay and issued a series of directions aimed at tackling the dowry menace. It called for greater awareness among youth, acknowledging that the law had thus far proved ineffective. The court laid down measures for faster trials, inclusion of awareness modules in curricula, improved enforcement and reduced leniency in bail
The Supreme Court's directions can help-but only if translated into coordinated, adequately resourced action, accompanied by realistic safeguards against both misuse and victim-blaming.
The order has significant symbolic value. When the apex court declares dowry a social and constitutional blight and mandates concrete measures-education reform, speedy trials, stricter bail norms and sensitisation campaigns-it reshapes public discourse.
While law and elite opinion have long condemned dowry, the court's intervention reframes it as a failure of the state that demands state remedies, not merely private shame. Judicial, directions can nudge reluctant institutions-police, prosecutors and education departments-into action where moral exhortation has failed.
Some of the court's practical remedies-fast-tracking trials, curricular inclusion, digital complaint portals and investigation timelines-address precisely the procedural gaps that have long plagued enforcement.
If delays, administrative apathy and data deficiencies are fixed, access to justice would improve, while preventive pressure would mount on families and communities that perpetuate dowry practices.
The Limitations
However, directions alone are not enough. Three major, interconnected challenges remain.
1. Enforcement capacity and political will: The Supreme Court can issue directives, but implementation rests with overstretched police forces, underfunded prosecution services and education departments already burdened with competing priorities.
India's federal structure often produces energetic apex court orders that either trickle down slowly or dissipate unevenly across states. Without ring-fenced funding, monitoring mechanisms and public dashboards, well-intentioned directions risk becoming paperwork rather than protection.
2. Social norms and economic incentives: Dowry is not merely an illegal transaction; it is embedded in caste hierarchies, status anxiety and market-like incentives surrounding marriage. Criminalising the supply side without addressing demand-why families insist on dowry and why daughters are seen as economic liabilities-will have limited impact.
The judges rightly noted the deep roots of 'hypergamy' in Indian society. Changing mindsets will take yaers, making a long-term mitigation strategy essential. Educational curricula and awareness campaigns are necessary, but generational in effect-they reduce incidence gradually, not instantly.
The 'Misuse' Dilemma
The court itself acknowledged that anti-dowry laws have been misused in some instances, fuelling backlash and calls for dilution. Such narratives weaken public sympathy for victims and empower those arguing for narrower protections.
Stronger enforcement must therefore be paired with procedural safeguards. The appointment of empowered Dowry Prohibition Officers should be expedited, with their names, contact numbers and email addresses widely publicised.
Quick preliminary assessment protocols, specialised training for police and judicial officers to distinguish genuine harassment from frivolous complaints, and victim-centric reporting mechanisms are essential to ensure that women are not punished for seeking justice.
A Checklist
For the court's directions to work, a realist's checklist is required.
If judicial push is to translate into a tangible decline in dowry-related cruelty and deaths, all stakeholders-state institutions, policymakers and society-must adopt a comprehensive approach.
The Supreme Court's directions are an important, even necessary, step. They recalibrate the institutional response and provide legal cover for states to experiment with enforcement, education and digital reporting.
But the lived reality of dowry will change only if these directions are backed by funding, monitoring, community engagement and procedural fairness.
Absent such multi-pronged follow-through, the order risks becoming yet another eloquent judgment-comforting the conscience, but doing little for the women whose lives it seeks to save.
(The author is Contributing Editor, NDTV)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author
