Women's Day Special | Punjab & Haryana High Court's Landmark Rulings On Women Empowerment

Despite 77 years of independence, the harsh reality remains: women are still in need of transformative justice and societal upliftment. The progress we celebrate has yet to bridge the gap between equality and empowerment. The debate over whether women need positive discrimination to ensure equal rights as men cannot be deemed redundant, especially when considering that, the majority (67%) still reside in rural regions, where women continue to face discrimination and gender-based violence. Even in cities, women still struggle for equal employment opportunities and confront challenges such as sexual harassment in the workplace. Female prisoners also face unique hardships due to biological factors.

The recent landmark judgments by the Punjab & Haryana High Court reflect the harsh realities women still face and the role of judiciary in empowerment. On this Women's Day, we reflect on how the High Court has played a transformative role in advancing justice for women.

Identity, Autonomy Of Woman Not Defined By Her Relationships

Breaking the shackles of societal taboos that dictate a woman must remain in her matrimonial home after marriage, the High Court in XXX v. State of Punjab, rejected the habeas corpus petition filed by a father seeking custody of his 30-year-old daughter, allegedly for sending her back to her marital home.

The Court observed that "the identity and autonomy of an adult woman are not defined by her relationships or familial obligations.”

Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul said, "the Constitution safeguards her right to live freely and make her own choices, without external interference. The notion that her father, or anyone else, can impose their will upon her based on a perceived social role is a direct affront to the right of equality and personal liberty enshrined in our constitution."

Right To Sexual Autonomy Comes With Responsibility But Can't Be Denied

Observing that unmarried women, who exercise their right to sexual autonomy, cannot be denied consideration for seeking medical termination of pregnancy, the High Court said that "exercise of a right of sexual autonomy also at times comes along with the responsibility to discharge duties that arise on exercise of such an option."

In X v. State of Punjab, the Court was hearing the plea to terminate 26 weeks pregnancy of a Class XII student, who was in a consensual relationship with a boy at the time and later parted ways.

While directing the medical board to re-examine the possibility of terminating the pregnancy, who opined that at this stage foetus would likely be born alive and thus recommended continuation of the pregnancy, Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj said, "this Court may have approved of the medical termination if the foetus or the mother would have suffered a grave physical or mental harm or the child was likely to be born with serious physical, mental or psychological deformities, however, a mental shock or stigma as a result of a pregnancy not approved, but on account of a consensual relationship, cannot at this juncture be seen as an event which would have an irreversible mental hazard."

"Exercise of a right of sexual autonomy also at times comes along with the responsibility to discharge duties that arise on exercise of such an option. A person may be called upon to live with the consequences of the option exercised, when such consequences cannot be erased and are required to co-exist. The desirability of a circumstance cannot outweigh the reality of the circumstance," the Court added.

High Court Refrains From Referring To Female Teacher As 'Mistress', Cites SC Directives On Addressing Females

The High Court in Neetu Sharma v. State of Punjab and others refrained from referring to a female teacher as "mistress", a terminology which the Punjab Government uses for the position.

Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma said, "Petitioner Neetu Sharma has approached this court with a grievance that she had applied for the post of Punjabi Language Mistress (the word mistress is although inappropriate but is a term being used by the State Government and therefore this Court would not delete it. however. would refer to it as Teacher' hereinafter keeping in view the observations of the Supreme Court with regard to use of appropriate terminology while addressing the female gender)."

Woman Living Separately Without Divorce Can Terminate Pregnancy Without Husband's Consent

The High Court in XXX v.Fortis Hospital Mohali & Ors, held that a woman living separately from her husband without obtaining divorce can terminate pregnancy without taking consent from the husband under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act.

Justice Kuldeep Tiwari referring to X Vs. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department and Anr and, Rule 3(B)(c) of the The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003 said, "giving a purposive interpretation to the expression “change of marital status”, this Court can safely conclude that although the petitioner does not fall within the purview of “widow or divorcee”, however, since she has decided to live separately from the company of her husband without legally obtaining divorce, hence she is eligible for termination of pregnancy."

'Court Should Refrain From Questioning Mother's Judgment', As No One Is In Better Position To Assess Child's Safety

In Veena Yadav v. State of Haryana, the High Court while granting pre-arrest bail to a 10-year-old girl's mother who is booked in a fraud case. In the present case, the father of the child was already in custody in Haryana Post Matric Scholarship Corruption Scam. If the mother was also arrested, she was left with no choice but to leave her 10-year-old daughter with relatives.

Justice Anoop Chitkara said, "As the parens patriae, the Court bears the responsibility to safeguard the child's interests and cannot relinquish this duty by placing her welfare in the hands of relatives. This is especially pertinent given that the mother, as the primary custodian, has explicitly expressed a lack of confidence in the capacity of any immediate family members to adequately ensure her daughter's safety, education, and emotional and social well-being, thereby compromising her overall security and welfare."

Haryana Staff Selection Commission Unjustly Rejected Woman In Physical Test For Constable Post, High Court Imposed Heavy Cost

The High Court in Karishma v. State of Haryana and others, imposed a cost of Rs 3 Lakh on Haryana Staff Selection Commission (Commission) for unjustly denying a woman candidate for the post of Constable.

After qualifying the recruitment exam, the candidate was disqualified in physical test because the height was not properly measured and thereafter her claim was unjustly rejected by the Commission "on one pretext or the other."

Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu said, "Since action of the respondent(s) is found to be wholly illegal and petitioner is being dragged in the avoidable litigation for the last six years; therefore, in order to ameliorate her miseries, the Commission is burdened with exemplary costs of ` 3 Lakh, which shall be paid to the petitioner."

Denial Of Medical Reimbursement To Female Employee's In-Laws Under 1940 Punjab Services Rules Needs Reconsideration

The High Court took note of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules 1940 which includes only biological parents and not the in-laws of a female employee for the grant of benefit of medical reimbursement, and said that it needs reconsideration.

Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi in Swaranjit Kaurt v. Stae of Punjab said, "...female employees, who are residing with their in-laws in their matrimonial home and the in-laws are dependent upon the said female employee, denial of the medical facility to them and rather extending the same to her biological parents, needs re-consideration at the hands of the State."

The Court also noted that the said issue has already been considered by the Government of India and "an option has been given to the female employees that they can choose either their biological parents or parents in-law, who are dependent upon the Government female employee for the grant of medical facility."

Female Infanticide In Punjab and Haryana Is 'Deeply Disturbing'- Court Denied Bail To Doctor Accused In Illegal Sex Determination Racket

Observing that "female infanticide remains a deeply disturbing issue in India, particularly in this part of the country", the Court refused to grant pre-arrest bail to a doctor accused of operating widespread illegal sex determination racket in both states in Dr. Anant Ram v. State of Haryana.

Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul said, "It needs to be pointed out that female infanticide remains a deeply disturbing issue in India, particularly in this part of the country; Particularly, alarming aspect is the involvement of unethical medical practitioners who, in violation of the hippocratic oath, covertly, conduct sex determination tests, thus, enabling this grave crime."

High Court's Suo Moto Action On Girls From Punjab Villages Dropping Out Due To Far-Away Schools

The High Court has recently taken suo moto cognizance of village girl students dropping out of schools due to non-availability of schools and infrastructure along Punjab's Patiala-Rajpura Highway.

Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Vikas Suri asked the State counsel to submit report with regard to the plight of the students of High Schools (10th) and Higher Secondary Schools (11th and 12th), especially girls who are compelled to drop out from their schools due to non-availability of infrastructure and even non-availability of schools along Patiala-Rajpura Highway, highlighted in a local daily.

Conclusion:

As we celebrate Women's Day, it is important to acknowledge the strides made by the judiciary, in advancing women's rights and empowerment. The landmark rulings discussed in the article not only reflect the harsh realities women still face, but also underscore the role of the court in driving transformative justice. Whether it's challenging outdated societal norms, ensuring reproductive rights, safeguarding autonomy, or addressing gender discrimination in the workplace, these judgments serve as a reminder of the need for continued progress.