Someone asked me this question today on WhatsApp.
Someone asked me this question today on WhatsApp.
After research of nearly 10 months from October 2018, my first PIL has taken a very good shape and has received constructive review comments/ positive feedback from various eminent MRAs and Organizations to include more relevant aspects to strengthen the prayers of the PIL. That feedback is being integrated into the PIL petition.
Meanwhile, the ideation for second PIL has begun few days back and on this page I will present the current status of the contention points being raised in this PIL supported by the legal grounds.
PIL : Public Interest Litigation
PMD Act: The Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936
HM Act: Hindu Marriage Act 1955
SM Act: Special Marriage Act 1954
DP Act: Dowry Prohibition Act 1961
Background (Once Upon A Time)
Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
The sum total essence of the Hindu marriage traditions and customs are legalized under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the inaugural bare act passed on 18 May, 1955 here. This page also has the latest amended Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 modified as on 14 May, 2019.
Interesting thing to note is there is not one instance of word DOWRY in the entire Hindu Marriage Act !!! VERY CRUCIAL POINT
Special Marriage Act, 1954
This Act caters to a special form of marriage in certain cases, for the registration of such and certain other marriages and for divorce.
Again not one instance of word DOWRY in the entire Special Marriage Act !!! VERY CRUCIAL POINT
The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
In India, like many other countries like Bangladesh, there is a societal menace called as Dowry. There were (and are) many crimes happening around the central issue of Dowry. Dowry Demand, Dowry harassment, Dowry Death etc. Since such societal problems are to be dealt at the highest level, Legislature jumped in to outlaw/criminalize all aspects of and around Dowry in India. Thus came the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Read the inaugural Bare Act as well as the latest amended one as on 3rd December, 2018 here.
Along came the Central Rules to support the Act styled as the Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of Lists of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985 by clicking here.
There there were Two amendments to this Act one in 1984 here and another in 1986 here.
On a comparable note, even our friendly neighbor, Bangladesh also suffers from Dowry issues in their society and they have also adopted a law prohibiting all aspects of and around Dowry here and they recently, in 2018, came out with a ground-breaking amendment to the Dowry Prohibition Act. Read the same here. Unfortunately, no english version with me.
The States have passed State Rules u/s 10(1) of the Central Act. All available are posted here.
Summary of Offences from DP Act (The AS IS)
Salient Features and Criminalized/De-criminalized acts from DP Act, along side their Legislature-proposed punishment and fine.
Now, What is the Contention Point? (The Why this PIL)
Despite making a law in 1961, prohibiting above acts, along side the Legislature proposed sanctions of punishment and fine, Dowry Menace in India has NOT come down a bit.
Sources for above conclusion and innovative and proposed (meaning not-yet-implemented) solutions till date
NCRB Data Goes here.
Law Commission Reports (if any) go here.
Compulsory Registration of Marriages, 270th Report of Law Commission of India, published on 4 July, 2017
Judgments crying about continuing/increasing Dowry Menace go here.
Eminent Think tanks/Feminist rotting sinks’ conclusions go here.
My Solution (The How; The TO BE; The Eureka)
FIRST ATTACK VECTOR
My belief is that majority of false dowry cases aver that Dowry is given during/before the marriage and that is exactly the first specific aspect this PIL targets, by linking the Registration of Marriage with The Section 2 of DP Act.
As mentioned in Background section, Marriages, irrespective under which custom or tradition performed, get legal status only when they are registered with Registrar of Marriages. Section 8 of HM Act (Registration of Hindu Marriage) provides for this purpose. Similarly, under SM Act, Section 15 provides for the registration of marriages. In PMD Act, Section 6 provides for registration of marriage.
The Government also made registration of all marriages compulsory (Source here).
Now, a careful perusal of the Form-A (Application for registering a marriage with a Registrar of Marriages) indicates that there are some fields that are directly associated with the HM Act. Case in point here is some columns/fields same or similar to below.
The above fields are in the FORM-A because as part of FULL-Disclosure, both parties declare about their status, if divorced and if they can marry. See Section 15 of HM Act which is the source of these fields. Same is covered in Section 30 of SM Act and Section 4 of PMD Act.
Similarly, other fields on this form are in compliance of various provisions of HM Act or SM Act or PMD Act.
If Divorce aspect can be linked to this form via HM, SM and PMD Acts, the Dowry aspect can and should be linked to this form via DP Act and the DP Rules.
A) A new field/column to be introduced into the Marriage Application Form-A such as:
Whether any lists of presents given to bride/groom made as per Rules 2(1)/2(2) as prescribed in the the Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of Lists of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985 until the date of the application?
Documents to submit to Registrar:
Duly filled and signed Original lists of presents given to bride/groom made as per Rules 2(1)/2(2) as prescribed in the the Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of Lists of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985.
B) A new field/column to be introduced into the Marriage Application Form-A such as:
Whether any dowry given to bride/groom or parents of bride/groom or guardian/relative of the bride/groom as prescribed in Section (2) of the the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 until the date of the application?
Documents to submit to Registrar:
Duly filled in declaration/affidavit admissible in a Court
C) A new field/column to be introduced into the Marriage Application Form-A such as:
Whether any demand was made for dowry by the bride/groom or parents of bride/groom or guardian/relative of the bride/groom until the date of the application?
Documents to submit to Registrar:
Duly filled in declaration/affidavit admissible in a Court
SECOND ATTACK VECTOR
Section 3 of DP Act requires amendment in the view of the bar imposed by Section 7(3) DP Act.
Section 3. Penalty for giving or taking dowry.—
(1) If any person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years, and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more:
Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than five years.
Section 7. Cognizance of offences.—
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force a statement made by the person aggrieved by the offence shall not subject such person to a prosecution under this Act.
By a combined reading of provisions of Section 3 with Section 7 as highlighted above, a person who gives dowry can never be prosecuted by Courts. Legislature, in their immense wisdom, may have come to the conclusion, the dowry-giver (In 99.9% of Dowry cases, Dowry-giver is the person aggrieved and the one who gives witness statement to Police u/s 161 CrPC) is an innocent person who cannot marry off his girl child, without giving dowry. Moreover, there is not one single case in India where a person was convicted and imprisoned for giving dowry.
Unless the Legislature meant any person who becomes aware of the Dowry being exchanged, becomes aggrieved by such offence, and such Person/Good Samaritan shall not be subjected to a prosecution under this Act. If it is the former understanding, as held in landmark judgments, that the one person coming forward complaining about Dowry is the father/relative of bride, then that person shall not be subjected to any prosecution, that, to my limited knowledge of DP Act and its Objects and Reasons, is a utterly wrong interpretation. If we consider that the later interpretation is what the Legislature had in mind, then that is correct interpretation of Law. This is also in sync with Section 7(1)(b) which postulates that, a complaint by a person aggrieved by the offence is NOT same as parent or other relative of such person. Here the person could be the bride or groom themselves.
(b) no court shall take cognizance of an offence under this Act except upon—
(ii) a complaint by the person aggrieved by the offence or a parent or other relative of such person, or by any recognised welfare institution or organisation;
A third-party to both parties/families coming together in a said marriage can be excluded from prosecution in case he/she makes a complaint. Exactly, as is held in case of Accidents, a good samaritan who helps accident victims with no fear of legal prosecution.
It is clear that person mentioned in entire Section 7 refers to either bribe or groom only. A father or relative of bride who comfortably/under duress gives dowry to other party, shall be liable to prosecution u/s 3 of DP Act, as much as the receiver of dowry. [From Collective reading of Section 7(1)(b) and Section 7(3)]
Under the above circumstances, the words ‘gives’ and ‘the giving’ are otiose and have become infructous and ripe for omission by Legislature and in the interest of Justice and in the spirit of Doctrine of Separability, striking off by Hon’ble Courts.
THIRD ATTACK VECTOR
Section 2 of DP Act provides for perpetualily to the definition of Dowry by stating,
Section 2. Definition of “dowry”.—In this Act, “dowry” means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly—
(b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person; at or before or any time after the marriage, in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies.
This perpetuity is disturbed by the time limits setup by Various State Rules framed by the State Legislatures u/s 10(1) of DP Act as well as Section 7 of DP Act.
AP DP Rules 1998 has Rule 5. which states:
(c). Any complaint shall be made either on the demand of dowry or accepting dowry within a period of one year.
Section 7. Cognizance of offences.—
(2) Nothing in Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), shall apply to any offence punishable under this Act.
Another rule is as follows:
10. Time for settlement of disputes: – Any offence under section 3 and section 4 or any dispute under section 6 of the Act shall be filed before expiry of one year and the same shall be finalized within two years from the date of filing.
Under the above circumstances, either the time-limiting State rules that are in violation of the section in DP Act deserves striking down and the Section needs to disallow perpetuity,
How is this Solution supported (The Thought Process)
A detailed psycho-analysis of the psyche of people who deal in Dowry is performed resulting in the following “What-if” scenarios and their consequences.
1. What if the father of bride gives dowry (Sec 3 of DP Act) but lies on the Form-A?
This should be an alert to the father of groom of possible false criminal cases u/s cruelty to wife for dowry harassment (498A IPC) and taking dowry (Sec 3 of DP Act) on immediate and distant family members and separately-living and abroad-residing relatives
2. What if the father of groom demands dowry (Sec 4 of DP Act) but lies on the Form-A?
This should be an alert to the father of bride of possible future demands for more dowry
3. What if the father of groom takes dowry (Sec 3 of DP Act) but lies on the Form-A?
This should be an alert to the father of bride of possible future demands to bring more dowry
4. What if the father of groom as well as the bride together lie on the Form-A, even in reality there is Dowry exchanged between them?
Both of them will have the consciousness that they lied on Legally admissible documents and a constant fear of no legal protection, What-If in the event there is a disruption to their wards relationship. Moreover, they will be more motivated to safe guard their side interest, by ensuring some kind of solid evidence exists (or created/manufactured) for giving/taking of dowry.
More What-If concerns, decimated:
1. What if there is a claim of dowry after the statutory limit as prescibed by the State Rules under DP Act or CrPC?
A. Courts would deem them as hopelessly barred by limitation and dismiss false/motivated cases
2. What if, a motivated Police Investigating officer files a false Charge sheet?
A. Since the IO will be bound to procure the Marriage application form as well as it’s annexures (Lists of Presents and No Dowry declaration) from the concerned Sub-registrar, he will NOT be able to file false Charge sheet, once the Form-A discloses No Dowry given/taken. The lack of evidence to support Dowry aspect itself removes any chances of allegations of 498A IPC, 304 IPC and provisions of DP Act, altogether.
3. What if, under such choking circumstances created by Legislature where Dowry taking or giving had to be reported, the parties decide to NOT register their marriage, after performing the marriage?
A. Such parties are left to their own fate and are left with no legal protections for their such acts. Not registering marriage after performing the marriage. They are a happy bunch, until the fateful event of arising of disputes between both the parties. Since the Government has mandated registration of all marriages, Courts shall take a narrow view at all the marriages claimed to have performed before certain date of notification of such mandate to be not valid marriages. Not giving any leeway or flexibility to parties coming to Court.
4. What if, Government can step in and make some stringent rules?
A. Alternatively and accommodatingly, Legislature can mandate all institutions of Marriage across religious as per their Laws, to report all marriages performed at their institutions and offices to Sub-registrar. Otherwise, no point in expecting citizens to follow the mandate of Compulsory registration of marriages and Clever citizens will bypass benevolent Laws easily, by NOT registering their marriages with Government. There is no breach of any fundamental rights here under any Articles of Constitution.
5. What if, there are no such precedents recently that say, Law should change with changing times and should reflect the sea-changes in the workings of society with such time.
A. There are recent precedents such as Striking down of 497 IPC, 494 IPC. If they can be struck down, DP Act made in 1961 can also undergo changes.
6. What if, there are no practical uses for this PIL?
A. This Act while ensuring all parties are adhering and fearing Dowry laws are left with no option but to comply with same also effectively, reduces false dowry cases filed under 498A 304B IPC and DP Act, if not brings it to zero, much to the relief of millions of Men and their families, who get routinely implicated in such false cases. This also could mean many men in armed forces can focus on their duty with out the constant nagging and panging of false criminal cases.
7. What if, a marriage is not registered, is there any issues to face? Like Nikhanama is not a valid marriage proof.
A. Passports, Visas, Joint Property Purchase, Addition to Family Ration Card, Voter ID, Aadhaar Card, child marriage, fraud, bigamy and husbands deserting their wives, women seeking their rights as wives, Universal traceability
8. What if, there are any ways to bypass tedious Marriage Registration process?
A. Notarized Affidavit+ Gazette Notification+ Property Purchase = New Identify so obtained can be used for all issues highlighted in Point 7 above.
9. What if, mandatory documents make the registration process tedious?
A. As per K. Puttaswamy judgment by Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court Aadhaar is not mandatory for registration of marriage. (1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/116396036/ and 2. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/129590004/)
IRDAI may soon link motor insurance premium with traffic violations; pilot project in Delhi
2. Soon, your bad road manners may increase your car insurance premium
STILL TO ADD
Want to read the final (supposedly!) version of PIL filed and withdrawn? Go here.
The following are the complete list of gender-biased Laws (and many provisions in both Substantial and Procedural Laws) enacted in India under the guise of Article 15(3) of Constitution of India and some being continued those that were enacted even before the effective date of Constitution and even more before the Independence of India.
The thing to note is that, there are no comparable laws made to protect men and boys
Substantial and Procedural Laws of India
From Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Amended from time to time)
From Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Amended from time to time)
From Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Amended from time to time)
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention Prohibition and Redressal) Act 2013
National Commission for Women, 1990
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956
Juvenile Justice Act, 2015
Some of the goals I set for myself here, include targeting some of the above discreetly.
Only the divorced women should be allowed to file for maintenance under Section 125(1) Cr.P.C. along with a copy of the divorce decree. All other classes of citizens those that are in married, widowed, marriage-like relationships, children (both legitimate and illegitimate), parents (senior citizens, adoptive parents, step parents should be barred to file for maintenance under Section 125(1) Cr.P.C. as they are covered by the later special enactments in Section 20(1)(d) of DV Act 2005 and Senior Citizens 2007. Allowing them multiple/ dual reliefs via special laws over and above general law, under same set of facts/allegations against same respondents, is nothing but legally allowing/approving to lead to Res Judicita and this Honorable Court has sufficient power and duty to do the substantial equity and justice.
This effectively caters to the needs of the genuine victims with timely relief and hampers the mischief played by fraudulent complainants. They cannot seek one relief of Interim maintenance and not seek another relief of disposal in 60 days. This has to be viewed with an eye of suspicion.
Some emails may fail. Find the correct/latest contact details by going to that specific department site.Guidelines on Grievances Received in The Department of Justice
After the following order was passed by the Apex Court bench, IBA has filed this complaint.National-Lawyers-Campaign-for-judicial-Transparency-Judgment
Here is the IBA complaint, in total.IBA complaint against Justice Rohington Nariman
Mr Subramanian Swamy got this section 6A of CBI’s DSPE Act (Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946) struck down as it was ultra vires to Article 14 of Constitution of India.Dr.Subramanian Swamy Vs Director CBI and Anr on 6 May, 1997
Let’s begin with the foremost judgment that raised curtain for Public Interest Litigations (PILs) in India, delivered by none other than the Super Judge, Shri Krishnaiyer, V.R.
The first public interest litigation case in India.
Municipal Council, Ratlam Vs Shri Vardhichand & Ors on 29 July, 1980
Citation : 1980 AIR 1622, 1981 SCR (1) 97
Indiankanoon.org link : https://indiankanoon.org/doc/440471/
[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]
Francis Coralie Mullin Vs The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi on 13 January, 1981
Now obviously when an under-trial prisoner is granted the facility of interviews with relatives and friends twice in a week under Rule 559A and a convicted prisoner is permitted to have interviews with his relatives and friends once in a week under Rule 550, it is difficult to understand how sub-clause (ii) of Clause 3(b) of the Conditions of Detention Order, which restricts the interview only to one in a month in case of a detenu, can possibly be regarded as reasonable and non-arbitrary, particularly when a detenu stands on a higher pedestal than an under-trial prisoner or a convict and, as held by this Court in Sampath Prakash’s case (supra) restrictions placed on a detenu must “consistent with the effectiveness of detention, be minimal.” We would therefore unhesitatingly hold sub-clause (ii) of clause 3(b) to be violative of Articles 14 and 21 in so far as it permits only one interview in a month to a detenu. We are of the view that a detenu must be permitted to have atleast two interviews in a week with relatives and friends and it should be possible for a relative or friend to have interview with the detenu at any reasonable hour on obtaining permission from the Superintendent of the Jail and it should not be necessary to seek the permission of the District Magistrate, Delhi, as the latter procedure would be cumbrous and unnecessary from the point of view of security and hence unreasonable. We would go so far as to say that even independently of Rules 550 and 559A, we would regard the present norm of two interviews in a week for prisoners as furnishing a criterion of what we would consider reasonable and non-arbitrary.
Citation: 1981 AIR 746, 1981 SCR (2) 516
Indiakanoon link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/78536/
Bad Behavior has blocked 386 access attempts in the last 7 days.