The Supreme Court opined that dowry prohibition laws in India might need to be reinforced and strengthened, but it was up to the legislature to do so, and not the courts.

The Court, therefore, asked a petitioner who was seeking a slew of measures to combat dowry to give a representation to the Law Commission of India in this regard.

"You can address this to Law Commission so that changes are suggested in Dowry Law and may be some amendments can be made. By issuing notice (on the petition), nothing will come out of it. Law Commission can look into it to strengthen the dowry prohibition law," the Court said.

The Bench also added that while laws are important, changes have to come from within.

"Change also has to come from within and how we treat a woman who comes into the family and the social importance of a woman. Reformers are looking into this too," the Bench remarked.

The Court was hearing a plea seeking directions to appoint a Dowry Prohibition Officer equivalent to a Right to Information (RTI) officer.

The plea filed by Sabu Stephen from Kerala also sought other measures like pre-marriage counselling for couples and a pre-marriage counselling certificate to be made mandatory for registration of marriage.

Petitioner highlighted the rise in dowry related cases and deaths in Kerala.

"I am disturbed due to the situation in Kerala. Police was suspended for not taking action in the dowry case of an Ayurveda doctor. It is an evil practice in Kerala. So much gold etc is demanded," he said.

The Court, however, said that it cannot issue directions to make pre-marriage counselling certificates mandatory for registration since it could have serious consequences.

"India does not reside only in Kerala, Mumbai or Delhi. India also resides in villages and you will not get these curriculum experts in the villages. If we say marriage will not be registered unless a course is attended, it will have serious consequences. Think of what will happen to a hapless village woman who cannot attend this course," Justice Chandrachud remarked.

These are legislative matters and courts cannot enter this domain, the Court added.

The Court, therefore, disposed of the plea after granting the petitioner liberty to raise the issue before the Law Commission.