Major judgements by Apex court for Gender Equality.

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, and Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) 5 and SDG 16 in particular, address the global responsibility we have to gender equality

Role of judiciary in Gender equality :

The Indian judiciary plays an important role in interpreting and applying the law. In a country where gender disparity is so common whether be it in the education sector, health sector or employment sector to name a few, the judiciary plays a pivotal role in empowering women and filling this gender gap.

1.Right to inherit ancestral property 

The Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Vineeta Sharma v Rakesh Sharma took a step towards gender equality. The court has set the record straight on the contentious issue of coparcenary rights of daughters, which gives them the same right to inherit ancestral property as a son and to ask for a partition of the coparcenary property. 

2.Breaking the glass ceiling in the Indian Army

As a measure to pave the way for gender equality in defence services, the Supreme Court in The Secretary, Ministry of Defense v. Babita Puniya and Ors, ordered the government to grant permanent commission to women officers in the Army’s non combat support units on par with their male counterparts should they wish to continue with it after completing their short-service commission.

The court said that all women army officers are eligible to be appointed in commanding roles and are also entitled to permanent commissions. It said the submissions made by the Ministry of Defense, “are based on sex stereotypes premised on assumptions about socially ascribed roles of gender which discriminate against women. Underlying the statement that it is a “greater challenge” for women officers to meet the hazards of service “owing to their prolonged absence during pregnancy, motherhood and domestic obligations towards their children and families” is a strong stereotype which assumes that domestic obligations rest solely on women.”

3)Reproductive Choice of Woman Is a Fundamental Right

Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration

A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court has upheld the notion that the reproductive choice of a woman is a fundamental right encompassed under the umbrella of Article 21 of the Constitution of India

4)Sexual Harassment At Workplace Is An Affront to Women’s Fundamental Rights

sexual harassment at work violates women’s fundamental right to equality, their right to live with dignity and to practise any profession.”

The court held that the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 was enacted to provide protection against sexual harassment of women at the workplace as well as for prevention and redressal of such complaints.

Here are the seven guidelines that the Supreme Court issued for sexual offence cases:

(a) Bail conditions should not mandate, require or permit contact between the accused and the victim. Such conditions should seek to protect the complainant from any further harassment by the accused

(b) Where circumstances exist for the court to believe that there might be a potential threat of harassment of the victim, or upon apprehension expressed, after calling for reports from the police, the nature of protection shall be separately considered and appropriate order made, in addition to a direction to the accused not to make any contact with the victim;

(c) In all cases where bail is granted, the complainant should immediately be informed that the accused has been granted bail and copy of the bail order made over to him/her within two days;

d) Bail conditions and orders should avoid reflecting stereotypical or patriarchal notions about women and their place in society, and must strictly be in accordance with the requirements of the Cr. PC. In other words, discussion about the dress, behavior, or past "conduct" or "morals" of the prosecutrix, should not enter the verdict granting bail;

(e) The courts while adjudicating cases involving gender related crimes, should not suggest or entertain any notions (or encourage any steps) towards compromises between the prosecutrix and the accused to get married, suggest or mandate mediation between the accused and the survivor, or any form of compromise as it is beyond their powers and jurisdiction;

(f) Sensitivity should be displayed at all times by judges, who should ensure that there is no traumatization of the prosecutrix, during the proceedings, or anything said during the arguments, and

(g) Judges especially should not use any words, spoken or written, that would undermine or shake the confidence of the survivor in the fairness or impartiality of the court.

Shayara Bano v. Union of India. 

The inhuman Islamic practise of Talaq-e-biddat, wherein men could irrevocably divorce their wives by uttering the word ‘talaq’ thrice, was adjudged unconstitutional by a 5-judge bench of Supreme Court.  This practice was derogatory to the dignity and equality of women as it violated Article 14, 12, 21 and 25 of our Constitution.

India young lawyer association vs state of kerala:

Issues of the Case is 

exclusionary practice which is based upon a biological factor exclusive to the female gender amounts to “discrimination” and thereby violets the very core of Article 14, Article 15 and Article 17 and protected by “morality” as used in Article 25 and Article 26[6] of the Constitution. 

The Apex court has declared that the practice of restricting women of a specific age group in their ‘ menstruating years’ from Sabarimala Temple is unconstitutional.

Joseph shine vs union of India 

Section 497 of the IPC is prima facie unconstitutional on the ground that it discriminates against men and violates Article 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India. When the sexual intercourse takes place with the consent of both the parties, there is no good reason for excluding one party from the liability. The said discrimination is against the true scope and nature of Article 14 as highlighted in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 

Justice K.S Puttaswamy (Retd. ) v. Union of India and Ors, (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494 OF 2012), since sexual privacy is an integral part of ‘right to privacy.’ Section 198 (2) of CrPC is also violative of Article 14, 15 and 21 of Constitution of India since it excludes women from prosecuting anyone engaging in adultery.