Landmark feminist judgements by the courts

India's first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru had said that "you can tell the condition of a nation by looking at the status of its women." While increased atrocities against women continue to blotch society, the judiciary continues to be the reliance for justice.

Hyderabad: Women who constitute half of the human population have been discriminated against, harassed and exploited irrespective of the country to which they belong, the religion they profess and the milieu they live in. Intersectionally, women have been subjected to physical, sexual and psychological abuse. Offences against women have been shooting up in India.

Pondering upon women's social status, one would find it to be contradictory in the Indian context. As per Indian tradition and culture, goddesses are worshipped and revered."Yatra nari pujyante tatra ramante devta" resonates in the projected culture. Paradoxically, women are regarded as secondary and they need to brave many atrocities from birth to death, in reality.

Meanwhile, the judiciary has been safeguarding women from atrocities through constitutional law. The role of the judiciary and public in elevating women's status to the present level is insurmountable. The unbiased and independent judiciary has been a true guardian of justice. Since independence, the judiciary has several times pro-actively interpreted and amplified the ambit of legislative provisions in favour of the unprivileged section of the country-women.

Here are landmark feminist judgements

The apex court in a landmark judgement on February 17, 2020, directed the Centre to grant permanent commission to all women officers in the Army within three months. The SC stated that there cannot be a blanket ban on women officers of the Indian armed forces when it comes to command postings. The SC was hearing an appeal filed by the Union Government challenging a 2010 ruling by the Delhi High Court that granted a permanent commission to women officers in the Army.

'Daughters have coparcenary rights'

In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court had held on August 11, 2020, that as per Hindu Succession(Amendment) Act, 2005, a daughter will have a share in her ancestral property, irrespective of whether her father was alive or not at the time of the amendment. Justice Arun Mishra pronounced the judgment in a batch of appeals that raised an important legal issue whether the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, which gave equal right to daughters in ancestral property, has a retrospective effect."

'Woman has right to reside in shared household'

The Supreme Court on October 15, 20202, overruled SR Batra verdict which denied women's right to live in a shared household. The apex court ruled that women have the right to live in a house that does not belong to her husband rather her mother-in-law's. The SC cited Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

'Minor rape victim has right to make reproductive choice'

In a remarkable judgement, the Rajasthan High Court on June 11, 2020, held that "the right of a child rape victim to make the reproductive choice of terminating the foetus heavily outweighs the right of the child in womb to be born even where the pregnancy is at an advanced stage." The verdict was pronounced by Justice Sandeep Mehta and Dr Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati.

'Two-finger test unconstitutional'

A division bench of J B Pardiwala and Bhargav D Karia in Gujarat High Court on January 30, 2020, held that “Two-finger test is unconstitutional. It violates the right of the victim to privacy, physical and mental integrity and dignity.”

'Sexual harassment at workplace violation of fundamental rights'

Sexual harassment at the workplace is an affront to the fundamental rights of a woman, the Supreme Court remarked on March 10, 2020, while upholding a High Court judgment that quashed a transfer of a woman bank employee. The woman employee of Punjab and Sind Bank was given a transfer order after lodging a complaint against an officer who sexually harassed her.

'State cannot act in misogynistic way'

Himachal Pradesh High Court on November 2, 2020, held that policy excluding married daughters to seek compassionate appointment is discriminatory. This remark was made by the High Court to allow the daughter’s plea seeking compassionate appointment in her deceased father’s position.

'Adult woman has right to choose her vocation'

In a notable judgement on September 25, 2020, three sex workers were freed by the Bombay High Court and the HC stated that an adult woman has the right to choose her vocation and cannot be detained without her consent. The HC cited the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

'Right to Education hampered by inadequate menstrual hygiene management'

The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir on December 16, 2020, has directed the Government of India and the Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh to pay attention to proper management of menstrual hygiene facilities. The High Court took suo moto cognizance when it was found that most of the girls are dropping out of schools due to inadequate sanitation facilities.

The Court pointed, “Deprived economic status and illiteracy leads to the prevalence of unhygienic and unhealthy practices which has serious health consequences.”

'Female foeticide destroys women of future'

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on November 3, 2020 dismissed the anticipatory bail of an accused in a case of alleged determination of foetus under the Prohibition of Sex Selection Act, 1994. The bench observed that the destruction of a foetus based on sex continues to plague society and it is an example of misuse of technology.“Female foeticide is the destruction of a woman of the future who has a multi-facet role in society,” stated the Court.

'Couple has right to live together if both partners are major'

Punjab and Haryana High Court on December 29, 2020, recently held that merely because the boy is not of marriageable age (though major) the right of petitioners to live-together cannot be denied. Noting that "Parents cannot compel a child to live a life on their terms and that every adult individual has a right to live his or her life as he or she deems fit", the High Court upheld a couple's right to be in a relationship.

'Right to choose a partner of choice a fundamental right'

In an important ruling, the Allahabad High Court on November 23, 2020, recently specifically observed that "Right to live with a person of his/her choice irrespective of religion professed by them, is intrinsic to right to life and personal liberty."Importantly, the Bench of Justice Pankaj Naqvi and Justice Vivek Agarwal remarked," We fail to understand that if the law permits two persons even of the same sex to live together peacefully then neither any individual nor a family nor even the state can have an objection to the relationship of two major individuals who out of their own free will are living together."