After losing out (didn’t lose the case but didn’t get opportunity to argue in-person) in an earlier attempt here, I decided to take Writ Petition route as I am one of the affected person of this biased implementation of a convoluted interpretation of section 7(3) of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 (amended in 1986). Also, decided to decentralize my PIL prayers.
So picked up this prayer from earlier attempt and worked on writing the WP.
Issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to Respondents, such that there is no ambiguity to them whether to prosecute the Dowry givers under section 3 of DP Act read with section 7 of DP Act and no discrimination is made between Dowry Giver and Dowry Taker, under Section 3(1) of DP Act, in similar fashion as that of made by Bangladesh.
Shouldn’t all Dowry givers be booked and prosecuted as per section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 (as amended from time to time) or not?
Arguments – Counter Arguments
Another simple point from the Bare Act itself.
Prosecute Dowry Givers u/s 3(1) without protecting them u/s 7(3) = Article 14 and 21 compliance
Strike down words ‘Gives’ and ‘abets to give’ from section 3(1) = ultra-vires to Article 14 and 21 compliance and contrary to legislative intent
All the cited case laws are listed here.
- Malreddy Ramachandra Reddy Vs C. Vanaja Reddy and Ors on 16 April 2003 (AP HC)
- Ram Gopal Sah Vs State Of Jharkhand on 03 December 2008 (Jharkhand HC)
- Pooja Saxena vs State and Anr on 20 October 2010 (Delhi HC)
- Yashpal Kumar Vs Bhola Nath Khanna and Anr on 1 March 2012 (Delhi HC)
- Kudarathullah Khan Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 21 March 2012 (AP HC)
- Viral Dhulia Vs Virag Dhulia on 25 July 2013
- Chitranjan Dev Goel and Ors Vs State (Nct of Delhi) and Ors on 21 March 2016