“ Every woman’s success should be an inspiration to another. We’re strongest when we cheer each other on”
-Serena Willimas
It is true! Women are strong when they cheer
for each other’s success but strongest when men and social institutions come
together to uplift the rights of women. No success can be achieved without a
supportive environment and proper safeguard that uplifts the rights of women in
society. After centuries of unequal treatment and atrocities faced by one
section of society, a required change was imminent and that change is visible
in modern times, from equal voting rights to equal education opportunities for
females and the list goes on and on. Hence, women’s day must not be confined to
the celebration of women’s rights, but it must be a day of remembrance for all
the renowned personalities who fought for equal rights and institutions that
upheld the said right.
One of the institutions is the Hon’ble Supreme
Court which has been a vigilant protector of women’s rights in India. Hence, on
the occasion of International Women’s Day let’s revisit recent top judgments of
the Apex Court.
Top Recent Judgments
Upholding The Decision Making Power
The case of Akella Lalita v. Sri
Konda Hanumantha Rao was a result of an appeal filed on the
direction of the Andhra Pradesh High Court to the mother who remarried that the
name of the biological father of the child will be used at places where the
record permits, or else the name of the present father must be mentioned as a
stepfather.
The Supreme Court, being mindful of the mental
health of the child due to the use of “stepfather” before the name of the
present father referred to the case of Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India, and observed that a
mother who is a natural guardian under Section 9(3) of the Hindu Adoption and
Maintenance Act, 1956 has an equal position as a father. The Court also held
that a mother who has remarried has the right to decide the surname of the
child and give her child to adoption.
Banning The Practice That Re-traumatises The
Rape Victim
In the case of State of Jharkhand vs Shailendra Kumar Rai @ Pandav Rai, the Supreme Court banned the conduct of a two-finger test or pre-vaginum test that had no scientific basis on the grounds that it is a direct attack on the dignity of the rape victim and detrimental to her mental health. The Court referred to the case of Lillu v. State of Haryana and reflected on the sexist and patriarchal notion that a sexually active female cannot be raped. The Supreme Court proceeded one step further to direct the Union Government and State Governments to circulate guidelines formulated by the Ministry of Health and Family to all government and private hospitals. It also directed to conduct of workshops for the health providers to communicate a fair procedure for the examination of rape victims.
Providing Equal Abortion Rights
The case of X vs Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt of NCT Of Delhi is well known for upholding the abortion rights of unmarried women in India. The main dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court held that unmarried women have a right to seek an abortion during the pregnancy term of 20 to 24 weeks. Since there was no inclusion of unmarried women under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, the said exclusion was declared to be unconstitutional under Article 14 and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Hence, the Supreme Court eradicated the distinction between abortion rights available to married women and unmarried women, thereby upholding the reproductive rights and individual autonomy of an unmarried woman at par with married ones.
Upholding The Right of Maternity Leave
In Deepika Singh v.
Central Administrative Tribunal, the Supreme Court
held that no woman can be denied maternity leave under the Central Services
(Leave Rules ) 1972. In the said case maternity leave was denied for her
biological child on the ground that her husband has two children from an
earlier marriage. The Apex Court came to the rescue by giving a purposive
interpretation to Rule 43( that allowed only a female employee with less than
two surviving children a maternity leave) in the light of Article 15 and
observed that said rule is violative of Article 14 and Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution as right to reproduction and child-rearing is one’s fundamental
right and unequal treatment between a female employee with less than two
surviving member and more than two surviving children is discriminatory.
Stopping The Abuse Meted Out By Sex Works
The case of Budhadev Karmaskar v.
State of West Bengal upholds the rights of sex workers under
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It observed that sex workers are
entitled to basic protection, human dignity, and decency. By using the power of
Article 142 of the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court issued directions to
the states and union territories to enhance the lives of sex workers. It also
directed the police to stop any physical or verbal abuse against the sex
workers. Also, to protect their right to privacy, the Supreme Court directed
the media to not publish pictures or identities during raid or rescue
operations. Lastly, the Supreme Court went a step further to order UIDAI to
issue aadhar cards to sex workers without proof of residence.
Prohibiting The Disclosure Of Rape Victim’s
Statement U/S 164 Cr. P.C
In the case of X vs M Mahender Reddy, the Supreme Court
took into consideration the protection of the rape victim and reaffirmed that a
rape victim’s statement made under Section 164 Cr.PC must not be produced
before any person including the accused till the chargesheet is filed. While
reaffirming the said verdict, the Court referred to the case of the State of
Karnataka by Nonavinakere Police v. Shivanna alias Tarkari Shivanna (2014) 8
SCC 913 and A v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020) 10 SCC 505
Upholding The Right Of Equal Share Of Property
To Tribal Women
The case of Kamla Neti (D) v.
Special Land Acquisition Officer looked into Section
2(2) and Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1955, and expressed dismay on
the non-inclusion of female scheduled tribes to the right of survivorship and
observed that it is violative of right to equality. Since the Supreme Court
could not disregard the said provisions of law, it urged the government to
bring suitable amendments to the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act.
Upholding The Right of Daughters To Inherit
Self-Acquired Property Of Father
The case of Arunachala Gounder
(Dead) v. Ponnusamy took into
consideration the Hindu Customary Laws (before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956)
and observed that a daughter is entitled to inherit the self-acquired property
of her Hindu father dying intestate. Also, it observed that a daughter is also
entitled to receive a share in the partition of a coparcenary property.
Reflecting on the various judicial decisions, the court opined:
“ If a
property of a male Hindu dying intestate is a self-acquired property or
obtained in the partition of a coparcenary or a family property, the same would
devolve by inheritance and not by survivorship, and a daughter of such a male
Hindu would be entitled to inherit such property in preference to other
collaterals.”
Quashing The Gender Cap In Orchestra Bars
In the case of Hotel Priya A
Proprietorship v. State Of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court criticized
the gender-based stereotypes and observed that imposing a gender cap on the
number of women or men who can perform in orchestras and bands, in licensed
bars, is unconstitutional. It also observed that such a gender cap is violative
of Article 15(1), Article 15(3), and Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian
Constitution.
“Practices
or rules or norms are rooted in historical prejudice, gender stereotypes, and
paternalism have no place in our society”
Upholding The Right To Reside In Shared
Household
In the case of Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi, the Supreme Court
took into consideration the rights of domestic violence victims and observed
that such victims can enforce the right to reside in a shared household. Also,
the fact that she ever lived in the shared household will be irrelevant. Hence,
to avail this right she is entitled to file an application under Section 12 of
the Domestic Violence Act.
The Supreme Court also observed that it is
immaterial “whether the aggrieved person,
when is related by consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the
nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together”
Conclusion
From the above reading, it can be concluded
that the Supreme Court is truly a survivor of women’s rights. From upholding
the rights of women enshrined under Article 14, Article 15(3), Article 19, and
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution to invoking Article 142 of the Indian
Constitution, the Supreme Court has tried its best to safeguard the rights of
daughters, wives, widows, victims of sexual abuse and rape, unmarried pregnant
woman and tribal woman. Without these pronouncements, the status of women has drastically
changed and the particular section of gender can enjoy the fruit equally.
Hence, we must take pride in such a supportive institution on this international women’s day, must we.
Arshnit Sandhu has completed her LLM in Corporate and Commercial Law from the National University of Study and Research in Law (NUSRL), Ranchi.
Disclaimer: The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in the text belong solely to the author and not to the Jurisedge Academy.
For daily legal updates, follow our official Jurisedge channel on Instagram and LinkedIn and join our Telegram channel
Subscribe to our Law Exams Capsule India’s One and only Comprehensive Law Exam Preparation Journal
Related
Jurisedge Academy
Share post:
It is true! Women are strong when they cheer for each other’s success but strongest when men and social institutions come together to uplift the rights of women. No success can be achieved without a supportive environment and proper safeguard that uplifts the rights of women in society. After centuries of unequal treatment and atrocities faced by one section of society, a required change was imminent and that change is visible in modern times, from equal voting rights to equal education opportunities for females and the list goes on and on. Hence, women’s day must not be confined to the celebration of women’s rights, but it must be a day of remembrance for all the renowned personalities who fought for equal rights and institutions that upheld the said right.
One of the institutions is the Hon’ble Supreme Court which has been a vigilant protector of women’s rights in India. Hence, on the occasion of International Women’s Day let’s revisit recent top judgments of the Apex Court.
Top Recent Judgments
Upholding The Decision Making Power
The case of Akella Lalita v. Sri Konda Hanumantha Rao was a result of an appeal filed on the direction of the Andhra Pradesh High Court to the mother who remarried that the name of the biological father of the child will be used at places where the record permits, or else the name of the present father must be mentioned as a stepfather.
The Supreme Court, being mindful of the mental health of the child due to the use of “stepfather” before the name of the present father referred to the case of Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India, and observed that a mother who is a natural guardian under Section 9(3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 has an equal position as a father. The Court also held that a mother who has remarried has the right to decide the surname of the child and give her child to adoption.
Banning The Practice That Re-traumatises The Rape Victim
In the case of State of Jharkhand vs Shailendra Kumar Rai @ Pandav Rai, the Supreme Court banned the conduct of a two-finger test or pre-vaginum test that had no scientific basis on the grounds that it is a direct attack on the dignity of the rape victim and detrimental to her mental health. The Court referred to the case of Lillu v. State of Haryana and reflected on the sexist and patriarchal notion that a sexually active female cannot be raped. The Supreme Court proceeded one step further to direct the Union Government and State Governments to circulate guidelines formulated by the Ministry of Health and Family to all government and private hospitals. It also directed to conduct of workshops for the health providers to communicate a fair procedure for the examination of rape victims.
Providing Equal Abortion Rights
The case of X vs Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt of NCT Of Delhi is well known for upholding the abortion rights of unmarried women in India. The main dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court held that unmarried women have a right to seek an abortion during the pregnancy term of 20 to 24 weeks. Since there was no inclusion of unmarried women under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, the said exclusion was declared to be unconstitutional under Article 14 and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Hence, the Supreme Court eradicated the distinction between abortion rights available to married women and unmarried women, thereby upholding the reproductive rights and individual autonomy of an unmarried woman at par with married ones.
Upholding The Right of Maternity Leave
In Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal, the Supreme Court held that no woman can be denied maternity leave under the Central Services (Leave Rules ) 1972. In the said case maternity leave was denied for her biological child on the ground that her husband has two children from an earlier marriage. The Apex Court came to the rescue by giving a purposive interpretation to Rule 43( that allowed only a female employee with less than two surviving children a maternity leave) in the light of Article 15 and observed that said rule is violative of Article 14 and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution as right to reproduction and child-rearing is one’s fundamental right and unequal treatment between a female employee with less than two surviving member and more than two surviving children is discriminatory.
Stopping The Abuse Meted Out By Sex Works
The case of Budhadev Karmaskar v. State of West Bengal upholds the rights of sex workers under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It observed that sex workers are entitled to basic protection, human dignity, and decency. By using the power of Article 142 of the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court issued directions to the states and union territories to enhance the lives of sex workers. It also directed the police to stop any physical or verbal abuse against the sex workers. Also, to protect their right to privacy, the Supreme Court directed the media to not publish pictures or identities during raid or rescue operations. Lastly, the Supreme Court went a step further to order UIDAI to issue aadhar cards to sex workers without proof of residence.
Prohibiting The Disclosure Of Rape Victim’s Statement U/S 164 Cr. P.C
In the case of X vs M Mahender Reddy, the Supreme Court took into consideration the protection of the rape victim and reaffirmed that a rape victim’s statement made under Section 164 Cr.PC must not be produced before any person including the accused till the chargesheet is filed. While reaffirming the said verdict, the Court referred to the case of the State of Karnataka by Nonavinakere Police v. Shivanna alias Tarkari Shivanna (2014) 8 SCC 913 and A v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020) 10 SCC 505
Upholding The Right Of Equal Share Of Property To Tribal Women
The case of Kamla Neti (D) v. Special Land Acquisition Officer looked into Section 2(2) and Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1955, and expressed dismay on the non-inclusion of female scheduled tribes to the right of survivorship and observed that it is violative of right to equality. Since the Supreme Court could not disregard the said provisions of law, it urged the government to bring suitable amendments to the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act.
Upholding The Right of Daughters To Inherit Self-Acquired Property Of Father
The case of Arunachala Gounder (Dead) v. Ponnusamy took into consideration the Hindu Customary Laws (before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956) and observed that a daughter is entitled to inherit the self-acquired property of her Hindu father dying intestate. Also, it observed that a daughter is also entitled to receive a share in the partition of a coparcenary property. Reflecting on the various judicial decisions, the court opined:
“ If a property of a male Hindu dying intestate is a self-acquired property or obtained in the partition of a coparcenary or a family property, the same would devolve by inheritance and not by survivorship, and a daughter of such a male Hindu would be entitled to inherit such property in preference to other collaterals.”
Quashing The Gender Cap In Orchestra Bars
In the case of Hotel Priya A Proprietorship v. State Of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court criticized the gender-based stereotypes and observed that imposing a gender cap on the number of women or men who can perform in orchestras and bands, in licensed bars, is unconstitutional. It also observed that such a gender cap is violative of Article 15(1), Article 15(3), and Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution.
“Practices or rules or norms are rooted in historical prejudice, gender stereotypes, and paternalism have no place in our society”
Upholding The Right To Reside In Shared Household
In the case of Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi, the Supreme Court took into consideration the rights of domestic violence victims and observed that such victims can enforce the right to reside in a shared household. Also, the fact that she ever lived in the shared household will be irrelevant. Hence, to avail this right she is entitled to file an application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act.
The Supreme Court also observed that it is immaterial “whether the aggrieved person, when is related by consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together”
Conclusion
From the above reading, it can be concluded that the Supreme Court is truly a survivor of women’s rights. From upholding the rights of women enshrined under Article 14, Article 15(3), Article 19, and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution to invoking Article 142 of the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court has tried its best to safeguard the rights of daughters, wives, widows, victims of sexual abuse and rape, unmarried pregnant woman and tribal woman. Without these pronouncements, the status of women has drastically changed and the particular section of gender can enjoy the fruit equally.
Hence, we must take pride in such a supportive institution on this international women’s day, must we.
Arshnit Sandhu has completed her LLM in Corporate and Commercial Law from the National University of Study and Research in Law (NUSRL), Ranchi.
Disclaimer: The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in the text belong solely to the author and not to the Jurisedge Academy.
You can access Jurisedge Recent Legal News Archives and our Jurisedge Blog for legal updates from around the globe.
For daily legal updates, follow our official Jurisedge channel on Instagram and LinkedIn and join our Telegram channel
Subscribe to our Law Exams Capsule India’s One and only Comprehensive Law Exam Preparation Journal
Share this:
Related