Supreme Court Issues 10 Directions to Expedite Dowry and Cruelty Trials

Summary: The Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ajmal Beg Etc., Misc. Application Nos. 2689-90 of 2025 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 132-133 of 2017, by order dated 20 August 2026, issued ten directions aimed at expediting cases concerning dowry death and cruelty under Sections 304B and 498A IPC, corresponding to Sections 80 and 85 of the BNS, 2023, and improving implementation of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The Court directed States and Union Territories to strengthen Dowry Prohibition Officers, One Stop Centres, Women Help Desks, counselling and victim-assistance mechanisms; undertake sustained awareness and educational programmes; and ensure periodic training of judicial officers, police, prosecutors and other stakeholders. Courts were asked, as far as practicable, to treat such prosecutions as priority matters, identify and monitor cases pending beyond three years, endeavour to frame charges within 60–90 days of filing of the charge-sheet, commence evidence within a reasonable period and conduct evidence continuously or day-to-day, subject to statutory safeguards and exceptional circumstances. The Court also directed stricter regulation of adjournments, preparation of witness calendars, greater use of digital dashboards and alerts for old cases, and periodic High Court review of pending appeals, revisions, bail matters and proceedings involving stays of trial. Mediation or counselling may be explored in appropriate matrimonial disputes not involving death, grievous violence or other serious offences. High Courts and States/UTs must submit compliance reports on 15 January, May and September covering pendency, disposals, case stages, awareness measures, Dowry Prohibition Officers and training initiatives, and the matter has been listed with compliance-cum-periodic reports on 15 October 2026.

It needs no rocket scientist to conclude that dowry cases which directly affects woman and her family must be treated most seriously and addressed on a war footing to ensure that the offenders are brought to book at the earliest! We see that it is in this context that the Supreme Court in a most commendable move issued ten key directions in learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ajmal Beg Etc. in Misc. Application Nos. 2689-90 of 2025 in (Crl. Appeal Nos. 132-133 of 2017) that was pronounced in the exercise of its criminal appellate jurisdiction as recently as on August 20, 2026 has directed courts and governments to take several measures to speed up trials in dowry-related cases and improve enforcement of laws pertaining to dowry deaths and cruelty against women which definitely deserves strictest punishment. It needs to be noted that the key directions came while the Apex Court was monitoring compliance with its December 2025 judgment in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ajmal Beg in which it had highlighted the continued prevalence of dowry and called for steps to improve enforcement of the law. These ten key directions covered institutional support, awareness, monitoring of cases, trial timelines, adjournments, technology, High Court reviews, training and periodic compliance reporting.

Background: Supreme Court’s December 2025 Judgment

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by a Bench of Apex Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Sanjay Karol and Hon’ble Mr Justice Augustine George Masih sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “This Court vide judgment dated 15.12.2025 passed in State of U.P. v. Ajmal Beg [Criminal Appeal Nos. 132-133 of 2017], while allowing the said appeals and restoring the judgment of trial court convicting the appellants under section 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (corresponding Sections 80 and 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) noted that while in this case, the accused person(s) has finally been brought to book, there are many cases in which it is not happen. Many, who openly seek and give dowry, go scot-free. It has been noted time and again, in various judicial pronouncements that Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 suffers from various difficulties in its implementation. This Court further, acknowledged that when it comes to the giving and taking of dowry in particular, this practice unfortunately has deep roots in society, hence, it being not a matter of swift change, a concentrated effort is needed on the part of all the involved parties, be it Legislature, Judiciary, law enforcement agencies, civil society organizations etc. Therefore, to address the systemic delay and ineffective implementation attending prosecutions under Section 304-B and Section 498-A, IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 following directions were issued:

Earlier Directions for Eradicating Dowry and Expediting Cases

“26. With an intent to further this change, we issue the following directions: –

(a) to ensure that the change brought in is able to make an impact on the efforts to eradicate this evil, it is to be ensured that the future generation, youngsters of today, are informed and made aware about this evil practice and the necessity to eschew it. As such, it is directed that States and even the Union Government consider changes as are necessary to the educational curricula across levels, reinforcing the constitutional position that parties to a marriage are equal to one another and one is not subservient to the other as is sought to be established by giving and taking of money and or articles at the time of marriage;

(b) The law provides for the appointment of Dowry Prohibition Officers40 in States. It is to be ensured that these officers are duly deputed, aware of their responsibilities and given the necessary wherewithal to carry out the duties entrusted to them. The contact details (name, official phone number and email ID) of such an officer designated to this position are disseminated adequately by the local authorities ensuring awareness of citizens of the area;

(c) the police officials, as also the judicial officers dealing with such cases, should periodically be given training, equipping them to fully appreciate the social and psychological implications which are often at the forefront of these cases. This would also ensure a sensitivity of the concerned officials towards genuine cases versus those which are frivolous and abusive of the process of law;

(d) it is not lost on us that the instant case began in 2001 and could only be concluded 24 years later by way of this judgment. It is but obvious that there would be many such similar cases. The High Courts are requested to take stock of the situation, ascertain the number of cases pending dealing with Section 304-B, 498-A from the earliest to the latest for expeditious disposal; and

(e) in furtherance of (a) above, we also recognize that many people today are/have been outside the education fold, and that it is equally, if not more so, important to reach them and make accessible and comprehensible, the relevant information regarding the act of giving or taking of dowry as also other acts sometimes associated therewith, other times independent thereof (mental and physical cruelty) is an offence in law. The District Administration along with the District Legal Services Authorities, by engaging and involving civil society groups and dedicated social activists, is requested to conduct workshops/awareness programs at regular intervals. This is to ensure change at the grassroot level.

27. Let a copy of this judgment be circulated electronically to the Registrar General of the High Courts who are requested to place the same before the Learned Chief Justices and solicit directions in accordance with the above, and also, to the Chief Secretaries of all States for necessary follow up action.

27.1 While the main appeals are disposed of, so far as these directions are concerned, to ensure compliance thereof, as also issue any other directions as may be necessary, list this matter after four weeks. States are requested to file affidavits indicating the position qua the direction given under (b) hereinabove. The High Courts shall do the same for (d).”

Compliance Affidavits Filed by High Courts, States and Union Territories

It would be worthwhile to note that the Bench notes in para 2 that, “Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, affidavits and data have been filed by several High Courts, States and Union Territories. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the States and, in particular, Mr. Kunal Chatterji, learned counsel, who has assisted this Court by placing on record a consolidated analysis of the affidavits/data so filed, along with suggestions received from the High Courts, States and Union Territories, and a set of proposed directions for the consideration of this Court.”

Supreme Court’s Ten Key Directions on Dowry and Cruelty Cases

Most significantly, most commendably and so also most remarkably, the Bench encapsulates in para 3 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “Having considered the material placed before us and the submissions advanced, we now proceed to pass the following directions:

1. Strengthening of Institutional Support Mechanisms

i. Strengthening of Institutional Support Mechanisms: States and Union Territories shall ensure effective functioning and dissemination of information regarding Dowry Prohibition Officers appointed/designated under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and shall strengthen:

a. One Stop Centres,

b. Family Counselling Centres,

c. Women Help Desks,

d. victim assistance mechanisms,

e. helplines, and

f. online grievance redressal systems for facilitating access to support and legal remedies for aggrieved women.

2. Awareness and Educational Measures

ii. Awareness and Educational Measures: States and Union Territories, in coordination with Departments of Education, Women and Child Development Departments, State Legal Services Authorities and other appropriate bodies, shall undertake sustained awareness and sensitization programmes concerning:

a. the social evil of dowry,

b. gender equality,

c. constitutional values,

d. and women’s rights, including through educational curricula, awareness campaigns, community outreach programmes and legal literacy initiatives.

3. Priority Classification and Monitoring of Cases

iii. Priority Classification and Monitoring of Cases: All Courts dealing with offences under Sections 304B and 498A IPC/Sections 80 and 85 BNS, 2023 shall, as far as practicable, treat such matters as priority cases and endeavour to ensure expeditious disposal thereof, without adversely affecting the hearing of other categories of cases. The concerned District Judiciary shall identify cases pending beyond three years, particularly those pending at the stage of framing of charge or recording of evidence, and undertake periodic monitoring thereof through monthly or quarterly review mechanisms.

4. Time-Bound Progression of Trial

iv. Time-Bound Progression of Trial: All Trial Courts shall endeavour, as far as practicable and subject to compliance with statutory safeguards under the CrPC/BNSS, 2023, to:

a. secure prompt appearance of accused expeditiously after filing of charge-sheet;

b. consider framing of charge preferably within 60 to 90 days from filing of charge-sheet;

c. commence recording of evidence within a reasonable period after framing of charge; and

d. proceed with recording of evidence on a continuous or day- to-day basis in terms of Section 309 CrPC/Section 346 BNSS, 2023. Provided the timelines indicated herein may ordinarily be adhered to as directory benchmarks, subject to exceptional cases involving multiple accused, supplementary charge-sheets, forensic delays, non-availability of accused, or other reasons to be recorded.

5. Regulation of Adjournments and Witness Calendar

v. Witness Regulation of Adjournments and Management/Witness Calendar:

a. Trial Courts/High Courts shall discourage unnecessary adjournments and ensure that adjournments are granted only upon recording reasons in writing. Where counsel for the accused repeatedly remains absent without sufficient cause, appropriate Legal Aid Counsel or Amicus Curiae may be appointed to ensure that proceedings are not unnecessarily delayed. Additionally, where the Investigating Officer has been transferred or retired, a substitute or holding officer shall be nominated sufficiently in advance to avoid adjournments.

b. Immediately after framing of charge, the Trial Court shall prepare a witness calendar indicating dates for examination of material witnesses, service of summons and sequencing of evidence. This will ensure structured witness management mechanisms, as far as practicable, to secure timely attendance of witnesses and avoid repeated deferment of evidence. Investigating Officers shall ensure prompt service of summons and production of witnesses.

6. Use of Technology and Digital Monitoring

vi. Use of Technology and Digital Monitoring: The High Courts shall endeavour to integrate, within the existing Courts Dashboards/CIS infrastructure:

a. stage-wise pendency tracking,

b. digital dashboards,

c. automated alerts for old pending matters,

d. and case monitoring systems in respect of cases arising under Sections 304B and 498A IPC/Sections 80 and 85 BNS.

7. Review of Pending Matters Before High Courts

vii. Review of Pending Matters Before High Courts: All High Courts shall endeavour to periodically review old pending criminal appeals, revisions, petitions under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS, 2023 and bail matters, particularly matters involving interim stay of trial proceedings, and take appropriate steps for their expeditious listing and disposal. Wherever proceedings are stayed, such orders may be periodically reviewed in accordance with law.

8. Training, Sensitization and Specialized Prosecution

viii. Training, Sensitization and Specialized Prosecution: All States/Union Territories and Hon’ble High Courts shall ensure periodic training and sensitization programmes for:

a. Judicial Officers.

b. Police Officials,

c. Prosecutors,

d. Protection Officers,

e. Counsellors, and

f. Other stakeholders dealing with dowry related offences, through Judicial Academies, Police Training Institutions and other appropriate bodies. States may also endeavour to designate prosecutors having experience and sensitization in offences against women for conducting prosecutions under Sections 304B and 498A IPC.

9. Mediation/Counselling in Appropriate Matrimonial Disputes

ix. Mediation/Counselling in Appropriate Matrimonial Disputes: In cases arising primarily out of matrimonial discord and not involving allegations of death, grievous physical violence, or other serious offences, the concerned Courts may, wherever permissible in law and considered appropriate, explore the possibility of mediation or counselling through duly mediators/counsellors, without compromising the rights of parties or the seriousness of cognizable offences.

10. Compliance and Periodic Reporting

x. Compliance and Periodic Reporting: All High Courts and States/Union Territories shall file status/compliance reports on 15th of January, May and September before this Court for consideration and further directions, if any, until the pendency of cases under Sections 304B and 498A IPC/corresponding Sections 80 and 85 of BNS, 2023 and cases involving Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 is substantially reduced, indicating, inter alia, the following:

a. pendency and disposal statistics,

b. stage-wise status of cases,

c. awareness initiatives undertaken,

d. appointment/designation of Dowry Prohibition Officers,

e. training programmes conducted,

f. and measures adopted pursuant to the present directions.”

Next Compliance Hearing on 15 October 2026

Do note, the Bench directs and holds in para 4 that, “List the cases with compliance-cum-periodic reports on 15th October, 2026.”

Supreme Court Appreciates Assistance of Counsel

Finally, the Bench then concludes by directing and holding in para 5 that, “We appreciate the efforts put in by Mr. Kunal Chatterji, learned counsel, and learned senior counsel/counsel appearing for the respective parties.”