The Commission of Sati (Prevention ) Act, 1987
1. Background
Sati was an ancient Hindu practice where a widow was compelled (or socially pressured) to immolate herself on her deceased husband’s funeral pyre. Although prohibited by Lord William Bentinck through Regulation XVII, 1829, isolated cases of Sati still occurred in India even in the late 20th century.
In 1987, the infamous case of Roop Kanwar in Deorala village, Rajasthan, shocked the nation when an 18-year-old widow was allegedly forced to commit Sati. This incident created massive public outrage and led to the enactment of The Commission of Sati (Prevention) Act, 1987.
2. Objective of the Act
To completely prohibit the practice of Sati.
To prevent glorification of Sati in any manner (festivals, processions, temples, etc.).
To impose strict punishment on those who abet, encourage, or participate in the commission or glorification of Sati.
3. Key Provisions
(a) Definition (Section 2)
Sati: The burning or burying alive of any widow along with the body of her deceased husband, or any other relative, whether the act is voluntary or otherwise.
Glorification of Sati: Observance of ceremonies, processions, or creation of a financial trust in memory of a woman who committed Sati.
(b) Penalties for Commission of Sati (Section 4)
Anyone who directly commits Sati shall be punished with death penalty or life imprisonment, along with fine.
Abetment or aiding in the commission of Sati also attracts the same punishment.
(c) Punishment for Glorification (Section 5–7)
Organizing processions, ceremonies, or constructing temples in the name of a Sati is punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years and fine up to ₹30,000.
(d) Special Courts (Section 9)
The Act provides for the establishment of Special Courts for speedy trial of offences under this Act.
The trial must be completed within one year.
(e) Banning Places of Worship (Section 7)
Any temple or institution created to glorify Sati can be removed or seized by the government.
(f) Burden of Proof
If a woman dies in suspicious circumstances related to her husband’s death, the burden of proof lies on the accused persons (those who encouraged or supported it).
4. Case Law
(i) Roop Kanwar Case (1987, Rajasthan)
Roop Kanwar, an 18-year-old widow, was allegedly forced into committing Sati.
Hundreds of villagers celebrated the act as a “holy sacrifice.”
Under this Act, several people were arrested for abetment and glorification.
However, due to lack of direct evidence, the main accused were acquitted in 2004 by a trial court and later upheld by the Rajasthan High Court.
The case demonstrated the difficulties in proving abetment, as most villagers turned hostile witnesses.
(ii) State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1996)
The Rajasthan government tried to ban public gatherings glorifying Roop Kanwar’s Sati.
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Act, emphasizing that right to religion (Article 25) does not extend to practices that are inhuman, cruel, or against public order and morality.
(iii) Mohan Lal Sharma v. State of Rajasthan
Petitioners challenged the ban on celebrating Roop Kanwar as a “Sati Mata.”
The courts held that glorification of Sati is unconstitutional and punishable under this Act.
5. Constitutional Validity
The Act has been challenged on the grounds of violating Articles 25 and 26 (freedom of religion). But courts have repeatedly upheld it, stating:
Sati is not an essential religious practice.
It is a social evil, violating Articles 14 (equality) and 21 (right to life).
6. Importance of the Act
The Act gave the government strong powers to prosecute and punish not only those who commit Sati, but also those who glorify or promote it.
It sent a strong message that tradition cannot justify cruelty or inhumanity.
Even though Sati cases are extremely rare now, this Act ensures that no such incident is tolerated.
✅ In Summary:
The Commission of Sati (Prevention) Act, 1987 is a stringent law aimed at abolishing the practice of Sati in all forms and eradicating its glorification. Courts have consistently upheld its constitutionality, reinforcing that human dignity and right to life are paramount over any customs or traditions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments