The regulation declared by Lord William Bentinck aimed to abolish the practice of sati, a controversial and deeply rooted custom in some parts of India where a widow would immolate herself on her husband's funeral pyre. British colonial powers were increasingly concerned about the implications of such practices, both from a moral and humanitarian perspective. By the late 1820s, the British East India Company had faced significant opposition from both British reformers and Indian social reformers regarding sati. The practice was condemned as inhumane and indicative of a desperate need for legal reforms in Indian society.

Despite the fierce local opposition Bentinck faced, he was undeterred. His regulation branded anyone who aided in the perpetuation of sati as guilty of culpable homicide. This legislative move was part of a broader agenda to address various social customs that the British deemed problematic. This regulation was not without controversy; prominent Indian leaders and traditionalists viewed it as an attempt to undermine Indian cultures and beliefs. Nationalists later regarded the ban as part of a larger colonial project that imposed Western values over indigenous practices, sowing seeds for future resistance to colonial rule.

Over the subsequent years, the regulation itself served as a focal point of the debate surrounding colonialism and Indian identity. It showcased the complexities surrounding colonial governance where the imposition of British law intersected with local traditions and sentiments, igniting discussions about reform, oppression, and cultural integrity. Furthermore, Bentinck's regulation paved the way for other social reforms in colonial India, setting a precedent for legal interventions aimed at improving women's rights and addressing social injustices.