ON Tuesday, the Supreme Court directed all states to ask their male employees to disclose if they had taken dowry.
Twenty-four hours later, Mantralaya reacted to the directive with nonchalance.
‘‘Do you think government servants will do that?’’ asked a top official from the state’s General Administration Department.
‘‘We will always find a way to escape this,’’ he told Newsline.
An under secretary from the Law and Judiciary Department said he understood the apex court’s concern. ‘‘But we have hardly made serious efforts to implement the existing Dowry Prohibition Act, which came into effect some 43 years ago,’’ he pointed out.
A direct fallout of the order would be that governments could frame rules that would make it mandatory for men seeking government employment to furnish information on whether or not they have taken dowry.
This will be difficult to implement, said 24-year-old Ramesh Pawar, who’s preparing for a state public service exam.
‘‘Do you think I’ll get married before landing a decent job? This isn’t going to work.’’
The government, he said, should first investigate dowry-harassment cases where women have complained of ill-treatment. ‘‘Tell me, what happened to the IPS officer who has been accused of beating his IAS wife for dowry?’’
Noted lawyer Majeed Memon begged to differ. The SC directive, he said, would serve as a deterrent for dowry seekers.
‘‘It will certainly help us curb the curse of dowry,’’ an optimistic Memon said.
If male government employees furnish incorrect information, they will be flouting the law, he added.
A police officer at his beat chowky off Marine Drive said the dowry system was rampant in his hometown in western Maharashtra.
‘‘Well-placed grooms demand whatever they feel like...cars, hard cash and gold,’’ he revealed.
The SC order, he said, would be difficult to follow in cases where parents of the bride themselves agree to offer a handsome dowry.
‘‘So where’s the question of disclosure?’’