THE COMMISSION OF SATI (PREVENTION) ACT, 1987

Sati was an ancient Hindu custom, according to which a wife immolated herself at the funeral pyre of her
husband. In 1811, Roy witnessed his brother's widow being burned alive on her husband's funeral pyre.
Three years later, he retired and concentrated on campaigning against the practice of women dying as Satis.
Raja Rammohan Roy was the first Indian to protest against this custom. In spite of protests from orthodox
Hindus, he carried on his propoganda against the custom. Finally, he won the cause when Lord William
Bentick, the Governor General of India passed a law in 1829 abolishing the custom of Sati. According to
this law the custom of Sati became illegal and punishable as culpable homicide. Raja Rammohan Roy also
opposed child-marriage and supported widow remarriage.

Raja Rammohan Roy supported Western education, including learning of English and the knowledge of
science and philosophy. He, along with David Hare, a missionary, founded schools to impart English
education to Indian children. He developed the Hindu College which finally developed into the Presidency
College in Calcutta.

Raja Rammohan Roy did not want the Indians to imitate the West. He based his teachings on the philosophy
of the Vedas and Upanishads and tried to bring about a synthesis of the Vedic religion and the Christian
humanism. This very synthesis formed the basis of the Ramakrishna Math which was later formed by
Swami Vivekananda. Raja Rammohan Roy focused the attention of the British Government to such
demands as appointing Indians to higher posts. He protested against restrictions on the freedom of the press.
His social reforms made him the "first modern man" in India. 

Lord William Bentick, Governer-General from 1828-35, was the pilot mainly responsible for trimming the
sails of the British Indian state to the wind of change. Bentick proceeded on a great northern tour and set in
motion a new land revenue policy based on detailed surveys made on the spot. This, became the basis of
north-Indian land administration during the British period. He reformed the judicial system creating two new
grades of Indian judges. In 1828 he suppressed Sati or the burning of widows on the funeral pyres of their
husbands. 

In the Bengal presidency in the previous fifteen years recorded burnings only had varied from 500 to 850
annually. In orthodox theory this practice was a voluntary action on the part of the Hindu widow anxious to
rejoin her god-husband through the purifying flames. She was Sati or devoted. In practice it was often
induced by relatives ambitious for the prestige of Sati in the family, greedy of her property, or wanting one
less mouth to feed. Raja Ram Mohan Roy had fought for a ban on Sati for past few years and had petitioned
in various courts but successive Governor Generals were hesitant to take some action. Lord William Bentick
acted and banned Sati and surprisingly faced little or no opposition from orthodox Hindus. His next move
was the suppression of Thugee, or ritual murder and robbery in the name of Goddess Kali.

Section 2(c): "sati" means the burning or burying alive of –

(i) any widow along with the body of her deceased husband or any other relative or with any article, object
or thing associated with the husband or such relative; or
(ii) any woman along with the body of any of her relatives, irrespective of whether such burning or burying
is claimed to be voluntary on the part of the widow or the women or other-wise;

Section 3: Attempt to commit sati.-Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Penal Code (45 of
1860), whoever attempts to commit sati and does any act towards such commission shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both:
Provided that the Special Court trying an offence under this section shall, before convicting any person, take
into consideration the circumstances leading to the commission of the offence, the act committed, the state
of mind of the person charge of the offence at the time of the commission of the act and all other relevant
factors.
Section 4: Abetment of sati.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Penal Code (45 of
1860) , if any person commits sati, whoever abets the commission of such sati, either directly or indirectly,
shall be punishable with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
(2) If any person attempts to commit sati, whoever abets such attempt, either directly or indirectly, shall be
punishable with imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
 
Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, any of the following acts or the like shall also be deemed to
be an abetment, namely:
 
(a) any inducement to a widow or woman to get her burnt or buried alive along with the body of her
deceased husband or with any other relative or with any article, object or thing associated with the husband
or such relative, irrespective of whether she is in a fit state of mind or is labouring under a state of
intoxication or stupefaction or other cause impeding the exercise of her free will;
 
(b) making a widow or woman believe that the commission of sati would result in some spiritual benefit to
her or her deceased husband or relative or the general well being of the family;
 
(c) encouraging a widow or woman to remain fixed in her resolve to commit sati and thus instigating her to
commit sati;
 
(d) participating in any procession in connection with the commission of satior aiding the widow or woman
in her decision to commit sati by taking her along with the body of her deceased husband or relative to the
cremation or burial ground;
 
(e) being present at the place where sati is committed as an active participant to such commission or to any
ceremony connected with it;
 
(f) preventing or obstructing the widow or woman from saving herself from being burnt or buried alive;
 
(g) obstructing, or interfering with, the police in the discharge of its duties of taking any steps to prevent the
commission of sati.
 
Section 5: Punishment for glorification of sati.- Whoever does any act for the glorification of sati shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to
seven years and with fine which shall not be less than five thousand rupees but which may extend to thirty
thousand rupees.
 
Section 6: Power to prohibit certain acts.- (1) where the Collector or the District Magistrate is of the
opinion that sati or any abetment thereof is being, or is about to be committed, he may, by order, prohibit the
doing of any act towards the commission of sati by any person in any area or areas specified in the order.
 
(2) The Collector or the District Magistrate may also, by order, prohibit the glorification in any manner
of sati by any person in any area or areas specified in the order.
 
(3) Whoever contravenes any order made under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall, if such
contravention is not punishable under any other provision of this Act, be punishable with imprisonment for a
term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to seven years and with fine which shall
not be less than five thousand rupees but which may extend to thirty thousand rupees.
Section 8: Power to seize certain properties.- (1) Where the Collector or the District Magistrate has reason
to believe that any funds or property have been collected or acquired for the purpose of glorification of the
commission of any sati or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the
commission of any offence under this Act, he may seize such funds or property.
 
(2) Every Collector or District Magistrate acting under sub-section (1) shall report the seizure to the Special
Court, if any, constituted to try any offence in relation to which such funds or property were collected or
acquired and shall await the orders of such Special Court as to the disposal of the same.

Section 9: Trial of offences under this Act.-

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, all offences under this Act shall be triable only by a
Special Court constituted under this section.
(2) The State Government shall, by notification in the official Gazette, constitute one or more Special Courts
for the trial of offences under this Act and every Special Court shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of the
whole or such part of the State as may be specified in the notification.
(3) A Special Court shall be presided over by a judge to be appointed by the State Government with the
concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court.
(4) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a judge of a Special Court unless he is, immediately
before such appointment, a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge in any State.

Central Sati Act - An analysis

Four months after the Roop Kanwar incident at Deorala, the focus of attention shifted to the need for central
legislation to stamp out the oppressive practice of Sati. Two rallies in Delhi, Rajasthan women activists,
MP's in the State and at the Centre all called for stringent legislation against Sati. By 1 October, the
Rajasthan Legislature had already promulgated an ordinance against Sati which is now a State Act passed by
assembly and upheld by the Rajasthan High Court. By the new year, the Commission of Sati (Prevention),
Act had passed through both houses with a minimum of debate or amendment.

The particular barbarism of consigning a vibrant life to the flames of a funeral pyre has always provoked the
rulers of India to prevent this horror, despite the spurious sanctity that has come to be attached to the
practice.

Historically, efforts to prevent Sati by formal means were extent even before the Moghul rulers came to
power. Under the Delhi Sultanates (circa 1325) permission had to be sought prior to any Sati. In time this
check against compulsion became a mere formality. In any case Hindu women from royal families
continued to burn unchecked. Humayun tried, but withdrew a royal fiat against Sati. Akbar insisted that no
woman could commit Sati without the specific permission of his Kotwals. They were instructed to delay the
woman's decision for as long as possible. Pensions, gifts and rehabilitative help was offered to the potential
Sati to wean her away from committing the Act. Children were strictly forbidden from the practice. The later
Moghuls continued to put obstacles in the way but the practice carried on in the areas outside Agra. In their
own sphere of influence the Portuguese, Dutch and French banned Sati but efforts to stamp out Sati were
formalised only under Lord William Bentinck after 1829.

British Regulation
The British were by no means certain of their approach to the custom no matter how abhorrent they found it.
Following Moghul example, for a while they tried to regulate it by requiring that it be carried out in the
presence of their officials and strictly according to custom.

Perhaps Bentinck was spurred on to Legislation by the unacceptable rise in Satis in his province, Bengal. In
the 10 years between 1815 and 1825, the figure had doubled to 639 deaths by burning. He was certainly
egged on by the constant entreaties of the missionaries and encouraged to action by the sea change being
wrought amongst an influential section of Hindus led by Raja Ram Mohan Roy's Brahmo Samaj.
Despite this, Bentinck approached the question with caution. He sent circulars to 58 of his administrators to
discover whether the army would revolt, whether legislation was advisable and whether Hindu resistance
could be contained. The consensus of opinion was that the army would pose no problem.

Finally, within 18 months of having assumed the governorship of Bengal, Lord William Bentinck passed the
Sati Regulation, XVII of 1827 on 4 December. The regulation was clear, concise and unequivocal in its
condemnation of Sati, declaring it illegal and punishable by the criminal courts. It made zamindars, petty
land owners, local agents and officers in charge of revenue collection especially accountable for immediate
communication to the officers of their nearest police station of any intended sacrifice of the nature
described. In case of willful neglect the responsible officer was liable to a fine of Rs.200 or 6 months in jail
for default.

Immediately on receiving intelligence that a sacrifice was to take place, the police daroga accompanied by
others was to go to the spot and declare the gathering illegal, prevail upon the crowd to disperse, explain that
any persistence was likely to make them all liable to a crime and if necessary prevent the Sati from taking
place or go and inform the nearest magistrate of the names and addresses of all those present. If the sacrifice
was over, a full and immediate inquiry had to be undertaken in the same way as for any unnatural death.

Most significantly the regulation eschewed any debate about voluntariness which has so much in the
forefront of the Sati debate in 1987. Aiding and abetting a sacrifice whether voluntary or not was to deemed
culpable homicide. Punishment was at the discretion of the court according to the nature and circumstances
of the case. No justification was to be made that the victim desired to sacrificed. The death penalty was
specially spelled out for any violence or compulsion or helping or assisting in burning of a widow while she
laboured under a state of intoxication or stupefaction or because any other cause impeded her free will. In
such cases the court was instructed to show no mercy.

Fundamental Opposition
Even before the regulation was out, some three hundred orthodox Hindus petitioned Lord Bentinck to stop
the abolition. They pleaded that the practise of "self immolation", was not merely a sacred duty but a
"privilege" of believers. Bentinck however would not relent.

The sequence of events that followed are and eerie precursor to the events after Roop Kanwars Sati in 1987.
Orthodox Bengali Brahmins formed themselves into the Dharma Sabha, just as today we have the Dharam
Raksha Samiti in Rajasthan. In all they collected more than Rs.30,000/- a huge sum in those days, to fight
the Regulation all the way upto the highest court. By contrast Raja Ram Mohan Roy was given Rs.5000/- to
assist the Government in their representations before the Privy Council in England. Both sides gathered
petitions and pamphleteered extensively.

In 1832 the appeal was heard by the Privy Council. The petitioners argued that it went against the basic
assurance given in George III Statute 37 whereby the Hindus were assured complete noninterference with
their religion. The abolitionists argued that there was really no freedom of religion that could go beyond
what was "compatible with the paramount claims of humanity and justice." Of 7 privy councillors, three
finally voted against Bentinck's regulation but finally it was it was upheld.

With the last hurdle cleared, Madras and then Bombay followed suit with their own legislation banning Sati.
Slowly local rulers who came under the yoke of the British also conceded legislation against Sati in
conformity with the British regulations. The rulers of Jaipur banned it in 1846.

Indian Penal Code

The 1833 Charter to the East India Company empowered the government to make laws for British India
with due respect for native custom and usage. T.B. Macaulay, brilliant academician and lawyer was given
the brief of formulating a comprehensive criminal code of universal application through the entire
subcontinent. He had no doubt in his mind that Sati was a barbarous practice which could brook no
justification. But the administration of 1860 and the Law Commissioners who revised the first draft, were
unnecessarily alive to the sensitivities of high caste brahmanical feeling and watered down the murder
provisions in their relation to Sati by enacting exception 5 of section 300. Under this, a mitigation was
provided for murder when "the person whose death is caused, being above the age of 18 years, suffers death
or takes the risk of death with his own consent." Despite this concession under the IPC, taking of life is
absolutely prohibited to everyone in every circumstance. But Punishment varies depending on the nature and
circumstances of the offense.

If on the facts, the ritualistic public burning or burying alive of a woman is shown to be involuntary, it is
murder plain and simple (Section 300 IPC 1860). In the unlikely even that the woman was a willing
participant, her death still amounts to culpable homicide (Section 299 or via exception 5 of Section 300) or
at the very least to abetment to suicide (Section 306). Even where a Sati is deemed to be a suicide i.e.
voluntary self-killing, the presence of any intoxicant or anything which in fact inhibits free will makes the
abettor as culpable as if he had helped murder the victim (section 305 IPC). The punishment for this is
exactly the same as for murder.

Where the Sati is incomplete, a person helping to achieve it is caught by the attempt sections of the IPC.
Depending again on the circumstances, the crime may be attempt to murder (section 307); attempt to
culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 308); or abetment to suicide punishable with one year's
imprisonment and attempt to commit suicide which is an offence for the woman as well.

Under the present IPC no one who abets a Sati should escape the consequences of his acts. Abetment can
take the form of instigation, conspiracy to do an act or make an illegal omission, intentional aiding, or
willful misrepresentation or willful concealment (Section 107). Again depending on the facts, the aider
could be abeting murder, culpable homicide. Form all the above it is clear that there are enough and more
laws on the statute books to punish those guilty of making any human sacrifice including widow burning.

Fresh Sati Legislation

Despite this, the Central government has passed the Commission of Sati Prevention Act of 1987. Womens
groups had been asked for suggestions. Had the Central government taken time to consider and passed
judicious amendments to the present laws which are compatible and in consonance with the general
jurisprudence of the country, the anomalies that have now arisen would not have come about.

While an entirely new act has the advantage of bringing under one, enactment scattered offenses so as to
form a ready code, it also fuels the belief that there was no law against Sati in the first place. A special law
again Sati related offenders also has the disadvantage of elevating a run of the mill criminal to the status of a
conscientious offender. Specific legislation also provides a rallying point for pro-Sati lobbyists and a ready
made cause in the name of religion and identity. Though the High Court at Rajasthan has already upheld the
constitutionality of the State legislation which the Central law copies, both acts undoubtedly suffer from all
the ills of hastily drafted and ill-considered legislation.

Burden of Proof
The least attractive feature of the new law is Section 16, which reverses the burden of proof on to the
accused. Under the philosophy or criminal law adopted in India and used uniformly throughout the Penal
Code, each accused is innocent until proven guilty. In every case the prosecution must prove its case
positively beyond reasonable doubt. The only argument for shifting the burden of proof sometimes put
forward is that the prosecution is so extremely disadvantaged in some circumstances that there would be
absolutely minimal chance of catching the culprit. In statutory minimal chance of catching the culprit. In
statutory cases where burden of proof is shifted, the offenses are relatively minor and the accused has a
generally easy time proving his innocence.

In the public, even tamasha atmosphere of a sati, witnesses are available; independent, corroborative
evidence is there for the authorities to gather and there is no justification for reversing the burden of proof
for a mere abettor to sati when a brutal sadistic or psychotic murderer in any other circumstances has the full
protection of the law requiring the prosecution to prove its case in each and every particular.

If the new law had been in the form of an amendment in the homicide sections of the IPC, declaring that
henceforth all Satis (or any ritual killings) shall be presumed to be as murder unless otherwise established by
the defense, the problem of women killers getting off lightly for merely abetting to suicide would have been
solved.

The woman herself in this case would have always been the victim. But under the new act a woman who
attempts Sati is herself liable to punishment for 6 months jail.

Abetting Sati
Without the principal there can be no abettor so the new act in its muddled way has to treat the woman as an
offender in order to catch all those who take part in the commission of a Sati.

Justice requires that the punishment fit the crime. The Penal Code while absolutely forbidding all killing
carefully differentiates between degrees of moral opprobrium society attaches to a crime. This is reflected in
the punishments handed out for different types of killing.

The new Sati Act throws these fine and necessary distinctions to the winds.

Section 4 first of all obfuscates the difference between abetment to a crime and the principle offender. It
lumps together all sorts into a single section entitled 'Abatement of Sati'. It punishes both the person who
actually prevents or obstructs a widow from saving herself from being burnt or buried alive in the same
measure as a person who participates "in any procession in connection with the commission of Sati".

Yet the degree of guilt is totally varied. In fact the man who intoxicates a woman or prevents her getting out
of the fire is not an abettor at all but a murderer and should be treated as such. The bystander may be
deemed an abettor and should be punished accordingly.

The does not mean that an abettor to the attempt would go free. Abetment to Sati can cover a wide variety of
activities, such as standing around shouting 'sati mata ki jai' and attending a ceremonial killing. The degree
of culpability should matter but under the new law the latter person is as liable to the death sentence as the
person who actually holds down the widow and prevents her from escaping from the pyre.

The bystander at a Sati ceremony is now certainly more disadvantaged than the gruesome murderer or his
aide is under the ordinary law. In their case at least the prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable
doubt.

Under the Indian Penal Code what is worrisome is the willingness of the authorities to treat cases of widow
burning as suicide rather than murder or culpable homicide, because by its very definition a classic Sati is
self immolation. The result is that abettors are let off comparatively lightly and escape the ignominy and
moral opprobrium that attaches to these. Of course a great deal depends on the willingness of the police to
pursue inquiries and lodge an appropriate FIR. Even in the Roop Kanwar case, one cannot help but feel that
but for the hue and cry raised, the matter would not have been taken up and under the murder sections of the
IPC.

Glorification
The new Sati Act forbids any glorification of sati, makes it punishable with upto 7 years imprisonment and a
possible fine of Rs.30,000/- (Section 5). Glorification" in relation to the practice of Sati includes, among
other things, "the observance of any ceremony or the taking out of a procession in connection with the Sati
or the creation of a trust or the collection of funds for the construction of the temple with a view to
perpetuating the honour of, or to preserve the memory of the person committing Sati."

Under the IPC 'glorification' before an act of Sati could be dealt with under the incitement to crime and
violence sections. But 'glorification' after an act of Sati is not covered.

In a democracy legislation has always to try to maintain the fine balance between freedom of speech and its
abuse. The naked opportunism seen after the Deorala incident has undoubtedly provoked this part of the
legislation, as well as Section 19 which disqualifies people' representative from elections if convicted under
the Act. It also tries to prevent unscrupulous candidates from using the Sati issue to make their political
fortunes. The danger of preventing the lunatic fringe from airing their views lies in their ability to go
underground with them and also clouds the limits of democratic debate.

The commercialisation aspect of Sati has been directly dealt with. But even today donation received by the
perpetrators of a crime can be confiscated under the general rule that no man may benefit from the fruit of
his crime. Donations at the Sati sthal are liable for confiscation if it is thought they will be used for an illegal
purpose, like building a temple against the public policy. Such donations when they are in the hands of a
committee can also be diverted away from their illegal purpose under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure
Code. This allows the court to direct how trust monies may be used if the purpose for which they have been
collect fails for intervening illegality. At the behest of the Advocate-general or any person interested, the
money can be diverted for purposes such as widow rehabilitation.

There is still room for more specific legislation to discourage the commercial success of tamashas like Sati.
An amendment to the Income Tax Act removing exemption from charitable donations made to temples
which commemorate or have come up as a consequence of an ancient or recent Sati, will at least discourage
large donors. Specifically excluding Sati temples from benefits given to charitable institutions will also
discourage them.

The tremendous attention and debate that a single events at Deorala generated is evidence of the ability of
the womens movement to bring about positive changes through sustained agitation. But even at the height of
lobbying for some kind of legislation it was never anyones case that liberation for women from years of
oppression could be brought only through essentially illiberal legislation, by robbing others of their
legitimate rights. If the old law under the IPC were but enforced no new jumbled legislation would be
necessary.

Hopefully there will never be another Sati and the entire discussion here will be academic. But recent
experiences both of the lack of political will to implement existing legislation and the determination of the
Rajputs to defy the law suggest that whatever Central laws may be enacted, may end up honoured more in
the breach than in the letter.

Roopkuvarba Kanwar (c. 1969 – 4 September 1987) was a Rajput woman who was immolated

at Deorala village of Sikar district in Rajasthan, India. At the time of her death, she was 18 years old and had
been married for eight months to Maal Singh Shekhawat, who had died a day earlier at age 24, and had no
children.

Several thousand people attended the sati. After her death, Roop Kanwar was hailed as a sati mata – a "sati"
mother, or pure mother. The event quickly produced a public outcry in urban centres, pitting a modern Indian
ideology against a traditional one. The incident led first to state level laws to prevent such incidents, then the
central government's Commission of Sati (Prevention) Act
News reports of the incident present conflicting stories about the degree to which Kanwar's death was voluntary.
Some news reports claim Kanwar was forced to her death by other attendees present. At the same time, there
are contradictory reports which claim that Roop Kanwar told her brother-in-law to light the pyre when she was
ready, supporting the possibility that she was at least resigned to undergoing sati, if not willing.
The original inquiries resulted in 45 people being charged with her murder; these people were acquitted. A
much-publicized later investigation led to the arrest of a large number of people from Deorala, said to have been
present in the ceremony, or participants in it.
Eventually, 11 people, including state politicians, were charged with glorification of sati. On 31 January 2004 a
special court in Jaipur acquitted all of the 11 accused in the case.

Police in India say a woman has burned to death on her husband's funeral pyre, committing the
outlawed Hindu practice of "sati".

The incident took place on Monday in Tuslipar village in the central state of Madhya Pradesh.

Sati, or the practice of a widow immolating herself on her husband's funeral pyre, is believed to have
originated 700 years ago.
The rare practice mostly happens in parts of northern and central India.

Senior Madhya Pradesh police official Shahid Absar told the BBC that the woman, Janakrani, burnt to death
on the funeral pyre of her husband Prem Narayan in Sagar district.

One report said she was in her 40s.

Mr Absar said Janakrani had jumped into the fire when her husband's body was being cremated according to
Hindu rites.

The police said early investigations had revealed Janakrani had not been forced or prompted by anybody to
commit the act.

Cases rare

Villagers say Prem Narayan died on Monday morning. His body was set alight by his family and villagers,
after which people left for home.

They say Janakrani left her house after returning from the cremation telling people she had to attend to some
work.

When villagers went looking for her they found her dead on the pyre, they
said.

Cases of sati are very rare in India.

The last incident, involving a 65-year-old woman, took place in Madhya Pradesh in 2002.

Famous case

The most high-profile sati incident was in Rajasthan in 1987 when 18-year-old Roop Kanwar was burned to
death.

The case sparked national and international outrage.

Police charged Roop Kanwar's father-in-law and brother-in-law with forcing her to sit on the pyre with her
husband's body, but the two men were acquitted by an Indian court in October 1996.

Sati is believed to have originated some 700 years ago among the ruling class or Rajputs in India.

The Rajput women burnt themselves after their men were defeated in battles to avoid being taken by the
victors. But it came to be seen as a measure of wifely devotion in later years.

The custom was outlawed by India's British rulers in 1829 following demands by Indian reformers.