On the occasion of International Women’s Day, we shine a light on landmark judgments delivered by the Supreme Court that have profoundly influenced and elevated the rights of women in our nation.
1. C. B. MUTHAMMA VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (1979).
This case revolves around gender discrimination within the Indian Foreign Service. CB Muthamma was the first woman to be appointed as an Indian Foreign Service officer. She had alleged discriminatory practices prevalent in the service, because of which she was denied the benefit of promotion.
Before the Supreme Court, she had contended that the provisions of the Indian Foreign Service (Conduct and Discipline) Rules, 1961, violated her constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 16. The rules, as they stood at that time, restricted women officers from serving in certain foreign posts and imposed conditions on their eligibility. It also disentitled them to promotion if they were to get married.
The Court acknowledged the blatant gender-based discrimination and held that the rules were indeed violative of the constitutional principles of equality. It emphasized that the Constitution guarantees equal opportunities to both men and women in matters of public employment, and that gender cannot be a valid criterion for differential treatment.
2. AIR INDIA VS. NARGESH. MISHRA (1981)
This case dealt with the discriminatory termination of air hostess Nergesh Meerza by Air India on the ground that she was married. The airline had a policy at that time that required air hostesses to resign within four years of their service or upon getting married, whichever occurred earlier.
As per the rules of the airline, air hostesses were required to retire at 35, or on marriage, or on their first pregnancy, whichever occurred earlier.
The Supreme Court held that the policy of forcing air hostesses to resign upon marriage was arbitrary and unreasonable. It emphasized the importance of gender equality and rejected the notion that marriage could be a ground for termination of employment.
3. MARY ROY AND OTHERS S. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS
Activist and educationist Mary Roy challenged the discriminatory provisions of the Travancore Christian Succession Act, 1916, which governed the inheritance rights of Syrian Christian women in Kerala. The Act, based on customary law, granted women only a one-fourth share of the property that their brothers inherited.
She argued that Christian women in Kerala should be entitled to an equal share of inheritance as their male counterparts, aligning with the principles of gender equality enshrined in the Constitution.
The Supreme Court in its judgment acknowledged the discriminatory nature of the Act and ruled that the one-fourth share for women was unjust and unconstitutional, emphasizing the need for gender-neutral laws in matters of inheritance.
4. STATE OF. MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER VS. MADHUKAR NARAYAN MARIDHKAR(1991)
In this case, a police inspector was accused of the attempted rape of a woman of ‘easy’ virtue. The woman had filed a complaint against the inspector, and in the course of investigation, admitted to being in a relationship with another man while she was married.
The departmental enquiry found the inspector guilty of perverse conduct and ordered his dismissal from service, but the High Court quashed the removal order as it believed it was unsafe to rely on the testimony of a woman of ‘doubtful reputation’.
The Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court and decided that there was sufficient evidence to corroborate woman’s testimony. The Court observed,
“Even a woman of easy virtue is entitled to privacy and no one can invade her privacy as and when he likes. So also it is not open to any and every person to violate her person as and when he wishes. She is entitled to protect her person if there is an attempt to violate it against her wish. She is equally entitled to the protection of law. Therefore, merely because she is a woman of easy virtue, her evidence cannot be thrown overboard.”
5. NEERA MATHUR VS. LIC OF. INDIA AND ANOTHER ( 1991)
In this case, a female employee was dismissed from service on account of her failure to correctly declare her last date of menstruation and the existence of her pregnancy on her employment declaration form at the time of joining service.
She approached the Supreme Court on the grounds that her right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution had been violated by the arbitrary order of discharge.
The Supreme Court set aside the discharge order, stating that the declaration required in the form was embarrassing, humiliating and a violation of the employee’s modesty and self-respect. It recommended deletion of such requirements from the declaration form and indicated that attempts to evade giving maternity benefits to a female candidate by not hiring her if she is pregnant would be open to a constitutional challenge.
6. VISHAKA AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS(1997)
In this landmark case, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of sexual harassment at the workplace, laying down crucial guidelines and establishing a framework for preventing and redressing such incidents.
The case originated from the gang-rape of a social worker in Rajasthan, prompting women’s rights groups to petition the Supreme Court for guidelines to address sexual harassment at the workplace.
In its decision, the Supreme Court held that sexual harassment of women at workplace violated the fundamental rights of working women under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution. The Court invoked international conventions and norms, including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), to emphasize the need for legal safeguards against workplace harassment.
These guidelines led to the formulation of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act (POSH Act), 2013.
Failure To Provide Drinking Water To Residents Of Approved Colonies: Rajasthan HC Initiates Contempt Proceedings
Cause Title: All Residents Of Ansal Sushant City v. The State Of Rajasthan & Ors. (Neutral Citation:)
Workshop on AI for Law Students by Lawlevelup [Online, Certification]: Enrol Now!
