Law Graduate Files PIL For Accountability In Dowry Complaints, Kerala High Court Seeks State's Stand On Publication Of Action Taken Data

Rule 5 lays down the procedure for filing a complaint by the party, parent or relative before the regional dowry prohibition officer.

The PIL was filed with an object to curb the social menace of dowry. According to the petition, the purpose of the Dowry Prohibition Act is defeated by Section 3, which penalises the giver of dowry. This, according to the petitioner, results in fear in coming forward when harassed for dowry. The petition states this provision fails to take into consideration the unequal bargaining power between the parties and societal pressure on the brides' families.

The petition also highlights the lack of proper enforcement mechanism, especially the mandate of keeping record of lists of presents given to bride and groom provided under Rule 2 of the Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of Lists of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985.

In addition to the prayer to strike down Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the petition also prays for a direction to the respondent authorities to ensure implementation of Rule 2 of the 1985 Rules and to publicise the data regarding the number of complaints received and action taken pursuant to Rule 5 of the 2004 Kerala Rules. Additionally, a direction to issue a framework for sensitization of the dowry prohibition officers was also sought in the petition.

When the matter came up before the Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji, the Court thought it appropriate to consider only the prayer regarding publication of data on complaints and actions taken for the time being.

Regarding the question of constitutional validity of Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the counsel appearing for the central government submitted that it would be best if someone penalized by the provision comes forward and challenges it.

He also pointed out to the Court regarding Section 7 under the Act, which states that the person aggrieved by the offence shall not be subjected to prosecution under this Act.

Upon hearing the same, the Court orally remarked, “If people willingly give dowry and willing accept it, it is criminalized but if it is forced, if you are forced to give dowry and you go and make a complaint, then you will be protected.”

Considering the prayer for making the dowry prohibition officers accountable for ensuring compliance with the 1985 Rules regarding keeping list of presents received, the Court orally said that this provision was a personal obligation and defence mechanism to prevent penalization.

It orally remarked, “So this would be a defence when somebody is being penalized for taking dowry, he can produce the list to show that I have maintained a list of presents at the time of marriage as per the rules framed and therefore, I have not committed any offence. That is the way it is…There is no need for an obligation on the social welfare officer to go around and ensure whether the list is maintained.”

Thus, the Court gave time to the government pleader to take instructions regarding the third prayer, namely, “to direct the respondents to publicise the data regarding the number of complaints received and action taken pursuant to Rule 5 of the Kerala Dowry Prohibition Rules, 2004.”

The case will be heard next on August 7.

The petition is moved by Advocates Kaleeswaram Raj, Thulasi K. Raj and Aparna Narayan Menon.

Case No: WP(PIL) No. 91/2025

Case Title: Tellmy Jolly v. Union of India and Ors.