Sati

Section 2(1)(c), sati. The act of burning or burying alive any WIDOW along with the body of her deceased husband or any other relative, or with any article, object or thing associated with him; or any WOMAN along with the body of any of her relatives, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER SUCH BURNING OR BURYING IS CLAIMED TO BE VOLUNTARY on her part or otherwise.

Read the last clause twice. It is the whole design of the Act. The defence at Deorala, and historically, was consent, and the statute removes it as a question.

Section 2(1)(b), glorification. In relation to a sati, whether committed before or after the commencement of the Act, it includes the observance of any ceremony or the taking out of a procession in connection with the commission of sati; the supporting, justifying or propagating of the practice in any manner; the arranging of any function to eulogise the person who committed it; the creation of a trust or the collection of funds, or the construction of a temple, with a view to perpetuating her honour or preserving her memory.

Section 3, attempt. Whoever attempts to commit sati and does any act towards it: up to six months, or fine, or both. The proviso requires the Special Court, before convicting, to take into consideration the circumstances leading to the offence, the act committed, THE STATE OF MIND of the person charged at the time, and all other relevant factors.

Section 3 is a hard provision to defend and easy to explain. It punishes the woman. Its justification is that it gives the police a lawful basis to intervene and remove her, and the proviso is Parliament's acknowledgment that a conviction would rarely be right.

Section 4, abetment. Where sati is committed, whoever abets it directly or indirectly: DEATH OR IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE and fine. Where it is attempted, whoever abets: imprisonment for life and fine. The Explanation deems the following to be abetment, among the like: inducing a widow or woman to get herself burnt or buried alive; making her believe that it will result in some spiritual benefit to her or her deceased husband or relative or to the general well-being of the family; encouraging her to remain fixed in her resolve to commit sati and thereby instigating her; participating in any procession in connection with the commission of sati, or aiding her in her decision by taking her along with the body; being present at the place as an active participant; preventing or obstructing the widow or woman from saving herself; and obstructing or interfering with the police in the discharge of its duties.

Section 5, glorification. Whoever does any act for the glorification of sati: NOT LESS THAN ONE YEAR and up to seven, with a fine of not less than five thousand rupees and up to thirty thousand.

Section 5 is why the Act exists. The Penal Code already covered the killing. What it did not cover was the procession, the trust, the temple and the eulogy, that is, the machinery that makes the next one possible.

The administrative provisions

Section 6. The Collector or District Magistrate, on being of opinion that sati or its abetment is being or is about to be committed, may by order prohibit any act towards it in a specified area, and may prohibit glorification in any form. Contravention of the first order is punishable with one to seven years and fine; of the second, with the punishment for glorification.

Section 7. The State Government may direct the removal of a TEMPLE OR OTHER STRUCTURE in existence for not less than twenty years in which worship or a ceremony is carried on to perpetuate the honour of, or preserve the memory of, a person in respect of whom sati has been committed.

Section 8. The Collector or District Magistrate may seize funds or property collected or acquired for the glorification of sati or found in circumstances creating suspicion of an offence.

Sections 9 to 12. Trial by Special Courts constituted by the State Government with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, presided over by a Sessions or Additional Sessions Judge; Special Public Prosecutors; the procedure and powers of a Court of Session, with offences triable summarily where appropriate; and the power to try other offences at the same trial.

Section 13. Forfeiture of funds or property in respect of which a person is convicted.

Section 14. Appeal to the High Court, within thirty days.

Section 15. Protection of action taken in good faith.

Section 16, the burden of proof. Where a person is prosecuted under SECTION 4, the burden of proving that he did not commit the offence is on HIM. A reverse onus on an offence carrying the death penalty, which is unusual and worth naming.

Section 17. All officers of Government are required and empowered to assist the police; and village officers, other specified officers, and THE INHABITANTS of the area must report to the nearest Magistrate or police station if they have reason to believe an offence has been or is about to be committed.

Section 18, the inheritance disqualification. A person convicted of abetment under section 4(1) is disqualified from inheriting the property of the person in respect of whom the sati was committed, or any property he would have inherited on her death.

Section 19. A person convicted of an offence under section 4(1) is disqualified for a period from being elected to or holding office in any of the bodies specified.

Sections 20, 21 and 22. The Act has OVERRIDING EFFECT notwithstanding anything inconsistent in any other enactment; the Central Government may make rules; and the Rajasthan Sati (Prevention) Ordinance and any corresponding law are repealed, with a saving.

Why the Act is examinable in a course on social transformation

Because it is law against a practice, not law against a wrong. The killing was already murder. Parliament legislated against the ceremony, the temple, the trust and the eulogy, which is legislation against the CULTURE that produces the act. That is the sharpest illustration of the Module I thesis in the whole paper.

Because it removes consent as a defence. Section 2(1)(c) says irrespective of whether the act is claimed to be voluntary. Consent given under a lifetime of a particular kind of instruction is what the statute refuses to treat as consent, and that reasoning recurs in the dowry, child marriage and trafficking chapters.

Because it shows the limits. Section 3 punishes the woman, section 4 imposes a reverse onus on a capital offence, and section 7 permits the removal of a place of worship. Every one of those is a serious objection, and an answer that does not raise them is incomplete.

And because prosecutions are almost unknown. Reported instances have become very rare, which is a success; convictions under section 5 have also been very rare, which is the criticism. Say both.

A worked example

A widow dies on her husband's pyre in a village. A month later a local committee organises an annual fair at the site, collects funds and builds a small shrine. A newspaper article defends the practice as an expression of faith.

The death. Section 4 against those who abetted, punishable with death or imprisonment for life, with the section 16 burden on the accused; and the general criminal law on murder or abetment of suicide, since section 20 makes this Act override but not exclude.

The fair and the procession. Section 2(1)(b)(i) and section 5: glorification, one to seven years and a fine.

The collection of funds and the shrine. Section 2(1)(b)(iv) and section 5; section 8 empowers the Collector to seize the funds; and section 7 permits the State Government to direct removal of the structure, but only if it has been in existence for not less than twenty years, so a NEW shrine is dealt with under section 6's prohibitory order and section 8's seizure instead.

The article. Section 2(1)(b)(ii), supporting, justifying or propagating the practice in any manner, and therefore section 5.

And the free-speech objection to the last of those. It is real. The answer is article 19(2), which permits reasonable restrictions in the interests of public order, decency and morality, and the argument that propagating the practice is the operative cause of the next death rather than an opinion about it. State the objection and the answer; do not pretend the point is easy.

What this does NOT mean

It does not mean sati was a general practice. It was confined in place, time and community, and the historical scholarship is emphatic about that.

It does not mean the 1829 Regulation failed. It very largely succeeded; the 1987 Act answers the celebration of a rare event, not a common one.

It does not mean consent is irrelevant everywhere. Section 2(1)(c) removes it for this offence, on this reasoning, and the reasoning has to be argued again for any other.

And it does not mean the Act is beyond criticism. Punishing the woman under section 3, reversing the burden on a capital offence under section 16, and removing a place of worship under section 7 are all objections a good answer states.

Quick revision

Regulation XVII of 1829, Bentinck, after Ram Mohan Roy: the practice declared illegal and punishable, with a preamble reasoning both that it is revolting and that it is NOT enjoined by the texts. The Penal Code covered the killing as murder or abetment of suicide. Deorala, Rajasthan, September 1987: a death and its public celebration, and the Act followed.

Commission of Sati (Prevention) Act 1987. s.2(1)(c) sati, of a widow with her husband or a woman with a relative, IRRESPECTIVE OF ANY CLAIM THAT IT WAS VOLUNTARY. s.2(1)(b) glorification: ceremonies, processions, supporting or justifying or propagating, functions of eulogy, trusts, funds and temples. s.3 attempt, up to six months, with a proviso requiring the court to consider the state of mind. s.4 abetment, DEATH OR IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE, with an Explanation listing inducement, promises of spiritual benefit, encouragement to remain fixed in the resolve, participation in the procession, presence as an active participant, preventing her from saving herself, and obstructing the police. s.5 GLORIFICATION, one to seven years and five to thirty thousand rupees. s.6 the Collector's prohibitory orders. s.7 removal of a temple or structure in existence twenty years or more. s.8 seizure of funds and property. ss.9 to 12 Special Courts and prosecutors. s.13 forfeiture. s.14 appeal to the High Court. s.16 burden of proof on the accused under section 4. s.17 duty of officers and INHABITANTS to report. s.18 disqualification from inheriting. s.19 disqualification from office. s.20 overriding effect.

Test yourself

1. Why did Parliament legislate in 1987 when the killing was already murder? Because the criminal law reached the act and not its surroundings. The procession, the fair, the trust, the temple and the public justification were not offences at all, and they are the machinery by which the practice is sustained. Section 5 punishes glorification and is the reason the Act exists.

2. Quote the part of the definition of sati that decides most cases. That it applies irrespective of whether the burning or burying is claimed to be voluntary on the part of the widow or the woman or otherwise. Consent is removed as a question.

3. Give four acts deemed to be abetment under section 4. Any four of: inducing a widow or woman to get herself burnt or buried alive; making her believe that the act will bring spiritual benefit to her, her deceased husband or relative, or the family; encouraging her to remain fixed in her resolve and thereby instigating her; participating in a procession in connection with the commission of sati or taking her along with the body; being present at the place as an active participant; preventing or obstructing her from saving herself; and obstructing the police.

4. State three provisions of the Act that attract serious objection. Section 3, which punishes the woman who attempts sati; section 16, which places the burden of proving innocence on a person prosecuted under section 4, an offence carrying the death penalty; and section 7, which permits the State Government to direct the removal of a temple or structure used to honour a person in respect of whom sati has been committed.

5. What technique of legal reform does the 1829 Regulation illustrate? Denying that the practice is enjoined by the religion rather than asserting a power to override religion. Its preamble reasoned both that sati is revolting to human nature and that it is not required by the texts relied on, which is the same move later made in the temple entry legislation and in the essential religious practices doctrine.