Indian Gender Resource Center

Som Nath v State of Haryana (SC 1980): The petitioner, already held gulity of burning his wife to death, had appealed to the Supreme Court against his conviction, and attempted to discredit the dying declarations (Section 32, Indian Evidence Act, 1872)  of his wife. The Court dismissed his petition and said, "Wife burning-that atrocious species of murder horrendously escalating in some parts of this country is a shocking crime... The three dying declarations corroborated by other circumstances are sufficient in our view to bring home the offence...they are the groaning utterances of a dying woman in the grip of dreadful agony which cannot be judged by the standards of fullness of particulars which witnesses may give in other situations. To discredit such dying declarations for shortfalls here or there or even in many places is unrealistic, unnatural and unconscionable...Gender justice has a high place in Indian criminal jurisprudence."

GN Bhura v KK Parbat (Gujarat HC 1997): The substantial question of law befor the Court was "Where the marriage solemnised is in contravention of the provisions of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 is void or valid?"

The Court answered th question by saying, "I am of the opinion that marriage solemnised between two Hindus who are of the age which makes one of them punishable under the Child Marriage Restraint Act does not render the marriage itself invalid or void. Therefore, rights and obligations arising from such valid marriage cannot be avoided by not recognising the marriage al all."

Suo Moto v State of Rajasthan (Rajasthan HC 2005): Angered by the rape of a foreign tourist, the Rajasthan High Court took suo moto cognizance of the matter and gave directions for protection of tourists and for conducting trials in cases such as this one. The Court observed that the judiciary could "no more be a silent spectator in the matter of violent crime against women and wait for its turn for dispensation of justice as provided under the relevant provisions of law."

S Satyanarayana v The State of AP and Others (SC 2003): In this case the Supreme Court held that those accused of crime against women do not deserve remission in sentence.

Anuj Garg and Others v Hotel Association of India and Others [Appeal (Civil) 5657 of 2007]: It was held by the Supreme Court that prohibiting women from being employed in bars or liquor outlets "result is an invidious discrimination perpetrating sexual differences."  

CB Muthamma v Union of India and Others (SC 1979): The petitioner was then a senior member of the Indian Foreign Service (IFS). She alleged that she was overlooked for promotion as she was a woman. She also pointed out inherent bias in the service rules, which, in short said that a woman member of the service shall obtain permission in writing of the Government before marriage and the woman member may be required to resign any time after marriage if the Government is satisfied that her family and domestic commitments will hamper her duties as a member of the service and under the second rule no married woman shall be entitled as of right to be appointed to the service.

The Supreme Court, among other things, held, "Discrimination against women, in traumatic transparency, is found in this rule. If a woman member shall obtain the permission of government before she marries, the same risk is run by government if a male member contracts a marriage. If the family and domestic commitments of a woman member of the Service is likely to come in the way of efficient discharge of duties, a similar situation may well arise in the case of a male member. In these days of nuclear families, inter-continental marriages and unconventional behaviour, one fails to understand the naked bias against the gentler of the species...If a married man has a right, a married woman, other things being equal, stands on no worse footing. This misogynous posture is a hangover of the masculine culture of manacling the weaker sex forgetting how our struggle for national freedom was also a battle against woman's thraldom. Freedom is indivisible, so is Justice. That our founding faith enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 should have been tragically ignored vis-a-vis half of India's humanity, viz., our women, is a sad reflection on the distance between Constitution in the book and Law in Action. And if the Executive as the surrogate of Parliament, makes rules in the teeth of Part III, especially when high political office, even diplomatic assignment has been filled by women, the inference of die-hard allergy to gender parity is inevitable...save where the differentiation is demonstrable, the rule of equality must govern."

MCD v Female Workers (Muster Roll) and Another (SC 2000): Female workers, even those not in permanent employment, are entitled to maternity benefits (Maternity Benefits Act, 1961) as laid down by law.

Savita Samvedi and Another v Union of India and Others (SC 1996): In a case where a father and his married daughter are both railway employees, whether, on retirement of the father, the married daughter can seek regularization of railway accommodation in her name (previously held by the father) so she can look after her parents? The Indian Railways refused the prayer of the daughter citing a railway order which did not allow married daughters to seek regularization of railway accommodation. The Supreme Court, however, allowed the appeal and said, "This appeal voices a cry for gender justice...the instant case is of gender discrimination and therefore should be and is hereby brought in accord with Article 14 of the Constitution. The Circular shall be taken to have been read down and deemed to have been read in this manner from its initiation in favour of the married daughter as one of the eligibles, subject, amongst others, to the twin conditions that she is (i) a railway employee; and (ii) the retiring official has exercised the choice in her favour for regularization. It is so ordered."

Abdurahiman v Nassera (Kerala HC 2000): A wife has got a right for dissolution of marriage on the ground that the husband neglected her or failed to provide for her maintenance for a period of two years.

Samar Ghosh v Jaya Ghosh (Appeal (Civil) 151 of 2004): The Supreme Court held that mental cruelty is a valid ground for divorce. The court also listed out instances which could fall under the heading of 'mental cruelty'. In this case, the wife, Jaya Ghosh, was found to have inflicted 'mental cruelty' on the husband, Samar Ghosh.

Suman v State of Rajasthan and Another (Cr Appeal 2120 of 2009): The Supreme Court held that even if the police report is negative, an accused in a dowry harassment case must stand trial if the judge, upon enquiry, finds merit in the case.

RD Upadhyay v State of AP and Others (WP Civil 559 of 1994): The Supreme Court laid down important guidelines about the children of female prisoners who stay in prisons with their mothers. The Court said, "it becomes apparent that children of women prisoners who are living in jail require additional protection. In many respects, they suffer the consequences of neglect...a lot more is required to be done...for looking after the interest of the children. It is in this light that it becomes necessary to issue directions so as to ensure that the minimum standards are met...vis-`-vis the children of women prisoners living in prison."

Naz Foundation v Government of NCT of Delhi and Others (WP (C) 7455/2001): In this case, the Delhi High Court decriminalized consensual homosexual sex between adults and held that "...section 377 IPC, insofar as it criminalizes consensual sex of adults in private is violative of Articles 21, 14 and 15 of the Constitution..."

Madhu Kishwar and Others v State of Bihar and Others (SC 1996): The Supreme Court agreed with the plea of the petitioners (while refraining from striking down the concerned provisions as  being violative of Article 14) that certain provisions of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 which provide in favour of male succession to property are discriminatory and unfair against women. The Court said, "...the immediate female relatives of the last male tenant have the constitutional remedy to stay on holding the land so long as they remain dependent on it for earning their livelihood, for otherwise it would render them destitute...In other words, the exclusive right of male succession conceived of in section 7 and 8 has to remain in suspended animation so long as the right of livelihood of the female descendants of the last male holder remains valid and in vogue..."

SK Chandrika v Byamma and Others (Karnataka HC 1999): It was held by the Karnataka High Court that maintenance under section 125 CrPC (Order for Maintenance of Wives, Children and Parents) could be claimed from a woman (in this case a mother), and not only from a male.

Javed and Others v State of Haryana and Others (SC 2003): It was held that those with more than two living children could be disqualified from holding posts in rural local bodies under any law to that effect.

Gaurav Jain v Union of India and Others [WP (Cr) 745-54/1950]: This judgment of the Supreme Court deals with the rights and rehabilitation of prostitutes. The Court observed that "Society is responsible for a woman's becoming victim of circumstances. The society should make reparation to prevent trafficking in the women, rescue them from red light areas and other areas in which the women are driven or trapped in prostitution...The Executive and the Judiciary are required to act in union to ensure enforcement of fundamental and human rights of the fallen women..."

Sakshi v Union of India and Others (SC 2004): This writ was filed by Sakshi, an NGO, seeking to widen the definition of "rape" as defined in section 375, IPC. While the Court did not grant the request by saying, "Accepting the contention of the writ petitioner and giving a wider meaning to Section 375 IPC will lead to a serious confusion in the minds of prosecuting agency and the Courts which instead of achieving the object of expeditiously bringing a criminal to book may unnecessarily prolong the legal proceedings and would have an adverse impact on the society as a whole. We are, therefore, of the opinion that it will not be in the larger interest of the State or the people to alter the definition of "rape" as contained in Section 375 IPC by a process of judicial interpretation as is sought to be done by means of the present writ petition," it laid down guidelines about holding trials in cases of rape of girl children or child sex abuse. 

Lily Thomas v Union of India and Others (SC 2000): the `husband' or  the  `wife', by mere conversion to another religion, cannot  bring to an end the marital ties already established on account of a valid marriage having been performed  between them.

CEHAT and Others v Union of India and Others (SC 2001): The Supreme Court laid down guidelines about the sale of USG machines (often used for sex-determination of fetuses). The Court also directed the Government to take stringent action to prevent sex-selective abortions.

Vijay and Kirti Sharma v Union of India  (Bombay HC 2007): A married couple with two female children had challenged parts of the law banning the sex-selction tests of foetuses. The Bombay High Court, however, upheld the law and said, "That society should not want a girl child; that efforts should be made to prevent the birth of a girl child and that society should give preference to a male child over a girl child is a matter of grave concern...It violates woman's right to life...It insults and humiliates womanhood. This is perhaps the greatest argument in favour of total ban on sex selection."

Vishaka and Others v The State of Rajasthan and Others (SC 1997): This landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India involves guidelines on sexual harassment, and in which the Court took the CEDAW framework into account. The Government of India framed guidelines on sexual harassment at the workplace as a consequence of this judgment. The Court had held that "gender equality includes protection from sexual harassment and the right to work with dignity, which is a universally recognized basic human right."

AEPC v AK Chopra (SC 1999): It was held by the Supreme Court that those accused of sexual harassment of women deserve severe punishment. The Court held that "Any lenient action in such a case is bound to have demoralizing effect on working women. Sympathy in such cases in uncalled for and mercy is misplaced."

MA Khan v Shah Bano Begum and Others (SC 1985): This case created a furore in the country because the Supreme Court held, among other things, that the issue of divorce and maintenance of a Muslim women should not be judged solely under Muslim Law, but that secular laws of India must apply. The Court also said that " A belief seems to have gained ground that it is for the Muslim community to take a lead in the matter of reforms of their personal law. A common Civil Code will help the cause of national integration by removing disparate loyalties to laws which have conflicting ideologies...But piecemeal attempts of courts to bridge the gap between personal Laws cannot take the place of a common Civil Code..."

Legal Framework          Law Commission Reports