International Women's Day : 30 SC Judgments On Women Empowerment

On this occasion of International Women's Day, a day dedicated to honor the accomplishment of women across the globe who fought and are still fighting for gender equality and rights, let us have a look at some of the landmark decisions of the Supreme Court on gender justice. 1. The Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya & Ors. (2020)"Permanent Commission should be granted to women in the army regardless of their service, in all the ten streams where the Union Government has already taken a decision to grant the Short Service Commission for women." The bench comprising Justice DY Chandrachud and Ajay Rastogi slammed the arguments made by the Centre in their written notes which had cited the physiological features and domestic obligations of women as reasons for denying them command appointments. The bench observed that such arguments perpetuate "gender stereotypes". The court also held that the absolute exclusion of women from command assignments is against Article 14 of the Constitution and unjustified. Hence, the policy that women will be given only "staff appointments" was held to be unenforceable by the Court. 2. Federation of Obstetric and Gynecological Societies of India (FOGSI) v. Union of India& Ors. (2019) "Giving preference to a male child is violative of Article 39A of the constitution and against the mandate of Article 51A (e) which casts a Constitutional duty on citizens to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women." While upholding the constitutional validity of Section 23 of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, the bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Vineet Saran observed that female foeticide is the most inhumane, immoral and anti-social act. The court said that the PCPNDT Act is a social welfare legislation, which was conceived in light of the skewed sex-ratio of India and to avoid the consequences of the same. The court also observed that skewed sex-ratio is likely to lead to greater incidences of violence against women and an increase in practices of trafficking, 'bride-buying' etc. The rigorous implementation of the Act is an edifice on which rests the task of saving the girl child, the court said. 3. Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018) "The five-judge bench unanimously struck down Section 497 IPC saying that it was unconstitutional since the very basis for criminalising adultery was the assumption that a woman is considered as the property of the husband and cannot have relations outside the marriage. The said section violated the right to privacy as well as the liberty of women by discriminating against married women and perpetuating gender stereotypes." The bench comprising Justice Deepak Misra, Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Indu Malhotra and Justice RF Nariman dealt with the petition challenging the constitutionality of the offence of adultery under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 198(2) of the CrPC. Section 497 of IPC criminalised adultery by imposing culpability on a man who engages in sexual intercourse with another person's wife. The same was punishable with a maximum imprisonment of five years. A married woman could not bring forth a complaint under Section 497 IPC when her husband was found to be engaged in sexual intercourse with an unmarried woman. 4. Danamma @ Suman Surpur v. Amar (2018) "The right of a daughter to be entitled to an equal share as a son in ancestral property, including daughters who were born before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 ("HSA") came into force." The Supreme Court has held that daughters who were born before the enactment of Hindu Succession Act 1956 are entitled to equal shares as son in ancestral property. The ruling was rendered in an appeal filed by daughters challenging a decree in a partition suit, which excluded them from partition.The Court also held that the daughters were entitled to the benefit of 2005 amendment as well, and on that basis also they were entitled to shares. 5. Roxann Sharma v. Arun Sharma (2015) "The custody of the child below five years should be with the mother who was well-educated and self-sufficient whereas the father was jobless." The division bench comprising of Justice Vikramajit Sen and Justice C. Nagappan held that the Hindu Marriage and Guardianship Act, 1956 protects the father's right as a guardian over the property but not over the child who is below five years of age. It was also stated that no provision of any law/act disqualifies the mother with custody of the child after five years of age. This case was considered to be a landmark because it exclusively specified the right of the mother to have custody of a child below five years of age provided that the mother is not unfit for the same. 6. Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan (2015) ...

International Women's Day : 30 SC Judgments On Women Empowerment

Arabhi Anandan

Tags