The Supreme Court, in an order dated August 20, 2026, issued ten directions aimed at expeditiously concluding trials in cases under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and corresponding provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The Bench, comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih, passed the order while monitoring compliance with its December 2025 judgment in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ajmal Beg. The Court noted the continued prevalence of dowry-related offences and the need to strengthen enforcement mechanisms to prevent delays in trial proceedings.
The first direction requires courts handling dowry death and cruelty to wife cases to treat them as priority matters, as far as practicable. This is intended to ensure that such cases are not buried in the general docket and receive timely judicial attention.
The second direction mandates district judiciaries to identify cases pending for over three years, particularly those at the stage of framing charges or recording evidence, and to monitor their progress periodically. This measure targets the backlog of old cases that often remain unattended for extended periods.
The third direction stipulates that trial courts should endeavour to frame charges within 60 to 90 days of the filing of the chargesheet. Evidence should commence within a reasonable period after charges are framed and, as far as possible, be recorded continuously or on a day-to-day basis to avoid fragmentation and delay.
The fourth direction discourages unnecessary adjournments. Courts are required to record reasons whenever an adjournment is granted. If the accused’s counsel remains absent repeatedly without sufficient cause, the court may appoint legal aid counsel or an amicus curiae to ensure the trial proceeds.
The fifth direction calls for the preparation of witness calendars by trial courts after charges are framed. Investigators are to ensure timely service of summons and production of material witnesses to prevent delays caused by non-appearance.
The sixth direction directs High Courts to utilise their existing court-management systems for digital monitoring of dowry cases. These systems should track stage-wise pendency and generate alerts for matters that have remained pending for an unreasonable duration.
The seventh direction requires High Courts to periodically review old criminal appeals, revisions, petitions under Section 482 of the CrPC or Section 528 of the BNSS, and bail matters involving dowry-related offences, especially where trial proceedings have been stayed.
The eighth direction mandates States and High Courts to conduct regular training for judicial officers, police officials, prosecutors, protection officers, and counsellors. States may also designate prosecutors with experience in offences against women to handle such cases.
The ninth direction urges States and Union Territories to strengthen one-stop centres, family counselling centres, women help desks, victim assistance mechanisms, helplines, and online grievance redressal systems. It also requires sustained awareness programmes on dowry, gender equality, constitutional values, and women’s rights.
The tenth direction imposes a compliance obligation on High Courts and States/Union Territories to file periodic status reports detailing case pendency and disposal, the stage of pending cases, awareness initiatives, appointment of dowry prohibition officers, and training programmes conducted. These reports must continue until the pendency of cases under the relevant provisions is substantially reduced.
The Court referenced its December 2025 judgment in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ajmal Beg, where it had restored the convictions of the accused after the Allahabad High Court had overturned them. The judgment arose from the death of a 20-year-old woman who had been married for just over a year and was allegedly subjected to demands for a colour television, a motorcycle, and Rs 15,000 in cash. The trial court had convicted her husband and mother-in-law under Sections 304B and 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in its assessment of evidence and emphasized that the 24-year duration of the case highlighted systemic delays requiring urgent remedial action.