Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram
© IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
“One of the marks of a progressive nation is the condition of its female population. Women too are stakeholders in this system and must become a substantial part of it.”
This was said on March 10 by Justice N V Ramana when he held the post of the Chief Justice of India. His words were almost like a prologue to what was to come over the rest of the year as the Supreme Court delivered significant rulings focusing on women, their rights, their representation, their position and contribution to society.
This year also saw three women taking oath as judges at the Supreme Court of India. Here are five Supreme Court judgments which upheld women’s rights.
In one of the most significant verdicts this year, the Supreme Court on September 29 ruled that all women, irrespective of marital status, are entitled to safe and legal abortion up to 24 weeks of pregnancy, saying it was the “right of every woman to make reproductive choices without undue interference from the State”.
The court held that the “artificial distinction between married and single women is not constitutionally sustainable”, and that “the benefits in law extend equally to both single and married women”.
“It is the woman alone who has the right over her body and is the ultimate decision-maker on the question of whether she wants to undergo an abortion… Depriving women of autonomy not only over their bodies but also over their lives would be an affront to their dignity,” said a bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud, A S Bopanna and J B Pardiwal.
The Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on October 13 on whether Hijab, a headscarf worn by Muslims, should be allowed in classrooms. While Justice Hemant Gupta upheld the Karnataka government’s ban on Hijab, saying “it was only to promote uniformity and encourage a secular environment” in classrooms, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia disagreed, saying it was “a matter of choice”, a “fundamental right” linked to the girl’s “dignity and her privacy even when she is inside the school gates”.
Justice Dhulia said in his judgment, “Asking a pre-university schoolgirl to take off her Hijab at her school gate is an invasion on her privacy and dignity.
“One of the best sights in India today is of a girl child leaving for her school in the morning, with her school bag on her back. She is our hope, our future,” he said in his judgment.
Justice Dhulia also said wearing Hijab “may or may not be a matter of essential religious practice, but it still is a matter of conscience, belief, and expression. If she wants to wear Hijab, even inside her classroom, she cannot be stopped, if it is worn as a matter of her choice, as it may be the only way her conservative family will permit her to go to school, and in those cases, her Hijab is her ticket to education.”
The Supreme Court on December 9 told the Army to “set your house in order” while hearing a petition by 34 women officers, who alleged junior male officers were being promoted over them to perform “combat and commanding roles” in the Army.
“We feel that you (Army) have not been fair to these women officers.… You better set your house in order and tell us what you are doing for them,” a bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice P S Narasimha said.
Observing that a female tribal is entitled to equal share in the property of her father, the Supreme Court on December 9 directed the Centre to consider amending provisions of the Hindu Succession Act to make it applicable to members of the Scheduled Tribes as well.
“When a daughter belonging to a non-tribal is entitled to the equal share in the property of the father, there is no reason to deny such a right to the daughter of a tribal community. Female tribal is entitled to parity with male tribal in intestate succession,” a bench of Justices M R Shah and Krishna Murari said, reported The Hindu.
“To deny the equal right to the daughter belonging to the tribal even after a period of 70 years of the Constitution of India under which right to equality is guaranteed, it is high time for the Central Government to look into the matter and if required, to amend the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act by which the Hindu Succession Act is not made applicable to the members of the Scheduled Tribe,” the bench added.
In a case related to the death of a woman, allegedly due to the pressures of dowry, the Supreme Court in August said “the offence of dowry death is an offence against society”, and “such offences have a serious impact on society”.
“Keeping in mind the aforesaid aspects, imposition of sentence for the offence of dowry death is required to be considered. A strong message must go in the society that a person who commits such an offence of dowry death and/or the offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act shall be dealt with an iron hand,” a bench of Justices M R Shah and B V Nagarathna said.
Earlier, in January, a bench headed by then CJI Ramana called for a wider interpretation of the word “dowry”, to include any demand made from a woman, reported Times of India.
Blaming the under-representation in the judiciary on “patriarchy”, CJI N V Ramana said in March, “We have marched to a stage where women are in a position to compete with men, in every walk of life. All they need is the right opportunity to showcase their skills.”
“The presence of women as judges and lawyers will substantially improve the justice delivery system. The presence of women on the Bench and in the Bar has more than a symbolic importance. They bring to the law a different perspective, one that is built upon their experience. They also have a more nuanced understanding of the differing impacts that certain laws may have on men and women,” CJI Ramana added.
Along the same lines, his predecessor CJI U U Lalit told The Hindu “the ethos was changing”, and there needed to be more women judges. “Today we are completing 75 years, maybe when we complete 100 years, the ratio (of women judges) will be different,” he was quoted as saying.
Present CJI D Y Chandrachud in an interview to The Indian Express said the face of the judiciary today was “the product of the state of the legal profession three or four decades ago”, and the court needs to look at gender diversity, among other things while appointments are made.
Incidentally, in a positive step, the Supreme Court constituted an all-women bench this year, only the third time in history, comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Bela M Trivedi. The previous times were in 2013 and 2018.
Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram
