Top Quotes From The Top Court - From Supreme Court Judgments Of 2022 [Part II]

Many momentous decisions have been delivered and memorable observations made by the Supreme Court in 2022. This is the second part of collection of the top quotes. The first part can be read here.1. Widow and daughter has right to inherit self-acquired property of Hindu male “Right of a widow or daughter to inherit the self-acquired property or share received in partition of a coparcenary property of a Hindu male dying intestate is well recognized not only under the old customary Hindu Law but also by various judicial pronouncements…It is clear that ancient text as also the Smritis, the Commentaries written by various renowned learned persons and even judicial pronouncements have recognized the rights of several female heirs, the wives and the daughter's being the foremost of them. The rights of women in the family to maintenance were in every case very substantial rights and on whole, it would seem that some of the commentators erred in drawing adverse inferences from the vague references to women's succession in the earlier Smritis. The views of the Mitakshara on the matter are unmistakable. Vijneshwara also nowhere endorses the view that women are incompetent to inherit.” [Justice Krishna Murari in Arunachala Gounder (Dead) v. Ponnusamy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 71] 2. Women face persistent discrimination even after gaining access to a workplace “Women are subject to a patriarchal mindset that regards them as primary caregivers and homemakers and thus, they are burdened with an unequal share of family responsibilities. Measures to ensure substantive equality for women factor in not only those disadvantages which operate to restrict access to the workplace but equally those which continue to operate once a woman has gained access to the workplace. The impact of gender in producing unequal outcomes continues to operate beyond the point of access. The true aim of achieving substantive equality must be fulfilled by the State in recognizing the persistent patterns of discrimination against women once they are in the workplace… The manner in which a special provision should be adopted by the State is a policy choice which has to be exercised after balancing out constitutional values and the needs of the administration. But there can be no manner of doubt that the State, both in its role as a model employer as well as an institution which is subject to constitutional norms, must bear in mind the fundamental right to substantive equality when it crafts the policy even for its own employees.” [Justice D.Y. Chandrachud (as he was then) in SK Naushad Rahman v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266] 3. Family life of employees an important factor in state policy “The State while formulating a policy for its own employees has to give due consideration to the importance of protecting family life as an element of the dignity of the person and a postulate of privacy. How a particular policy should be modulated to take into account the necessities of maintaining family life may be left at the threshold to be determined by the State. In crafting its policy however, the State cannot be heard to say that it will be oblivious to basic constitutional values, including the preservation of family life which is an incident of Article 21.” [Justice D.Y. Chandrachud (as he was then) in SK Naushad Rahman v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266] 4. Right of the disabled to live with dignity important factor in state policy “The formulation of a policy therefore, must take into account the mandate which Parliament imposes as an intrinsic element of the right of the disabled to live with dignity…In considering whether any modification of the policy is necessary, they must bear in mind the need for a proportional relationship between the objects of the policy and the means which are adopted to implement it. Hence while we uphold the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, we leave it open to the respondents to revisit the policy to accommodate posting of spouses, the needs of the disabled and compassionate grounds.” [Justice D.Y. Chandrachud (as he was then) in SK Naushad Rahman v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266] 5. Judges require sufficient experience to enter the fold of higher judicial services “The Constitution has prescribed the requirement to the effect that a person shall be eligible for appointment as the district judge subject to only if he has been an advocate or a pleader for at least seven years. The Constitution does not preclude the exercise of the rule making power by the High Court to regulate the conditions of service for appointment. The Constitution being silent in regard to the prescription of minimum age, the High Courts in exercise of the rule making authority are entitled to prescribe such a requirement. It must be remembered that direct recruitment to the higher judicial services is...

Top Quotes From The Top Court - From Supreme Court Judgments Of 2022 [Part II]

Awstika Das

Our top picks from the memorable observations made by the Supreme Court in 2022.

Tags