The Exemplary Judgments delivered by the Supreme Court on Women's Rights | International Women's Day

Law is often hailed as the harbinger of social change and there are numerous examples to support this assertion.

The struggle for women’s equality has gone through many ups and downs in a few cases on the other hand, laws, legal provisions, and judgments have highlighted problems and gaps in implementation, which also require considerable attention to be adequately and effectively addressed.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in recent times has pronounced numerous judgments on women’s rights. On the occasion of International Women’s Day, I would want to succinctly discuss the significant pronouncements delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on Women's Rights.

To begin with, I would like to quote an observation made by Hon'ble Justice R. Banumathi in paragraph 370 in the matter of Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2017) 6 SCC 1:

370. Honesty, pride, and self-esteem are crucial to the personal freedom of a woman. Social progress depends on the progress of everyone. Following words of the father of our nation must be noted at all times:
"To call woman the weaker sex is a libel; it is man's injustice to woman. If by strength is meant moral power, then woman is immeasurably man's superior. Has she not great intuition, is she not more self-sacrificing, has she not greater powers of endurance, has she not greater courage? Without her, man could not be. If non-violence is the law of our being, the future is with woman. Who can make a more effective appeal to the heart than woman?"

1. X v. Health & Family Welfare Department, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1321.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case held that all women are entitled to safe and legal abortion irrespective of their marital status. The Court held that by obliterating the word “married woman or her husband” from the scheme of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971,the legislative authority intended to clarify the scope of Section 3 of the MTP Act and bring pregnancies that occur outside the institution of marriage within the ambit of the MTP act.

The Apex Court further held that by framing Rule 3B of the MTP Rules, the legislature intended to solve the social evil of women being unable to access abortion when their lives encountered crucial changes impacting their overall health (physical and mental health), and their decision to have a child was impacted after the length of the pregnancy exceeding twenty weeks.

The Court also took note of the right to dignity and held that if women with unwanted pregnancies are forced to carry their pregnancies to term, the government will be depriving them of their valuable right to determine the path their lives would take in the near future and in the long term.

The right to dignity would be under intrusion if women were compelled to persist with unwarranted pregnancies it will result in depriving women of autonomy not only over their bodies but also over their lives which would result in outraging their dignity.

2. Kamla Neti v. LAO, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1694

The Supreme Court held it would be unfair to deny tribal women the right to equal share in the family property when the same is available to the women belonging to the non­-tribal community.

Female tribals are entitled to uniform treatment with male tribals in intestate succession. To deny the equal right to women belonging to the tribal even after a period of 70 years of the Constitution of India under which the right to equality is guaranteed, hence, the Apex Court asked the Central Government to consider amending the Hindu Succession Act to bring Scheduled Tribes under its purview.

3. Akella Lalitha v. Konda Hanumantha Rao, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 928

The Court held that the mother is a Natural Guardian of the child and it is a mother's right to change the surname of the child after the death of the biological father. The court also held that after the biological father's death, the mother has the right to give up the child for adoption.

4. Arunachala Gounder v. Ponnusamy, reported in (2022) 11 SCC 520

The Supreme Court held that the right of a widow or daughter to obtain the self-acquired property or share received in the partition of a coparcenary property of a Hindu male dying intestate (without any will) is well recognised not only under the old customary Hindu Law but also by various judicial pronouncements. Therefore, the property would devolve by inheritance and not by survivorship, and a daughter of such a male Hindu would be entitled to inherit such property in preference to other collaterals.

5. State of Jharkhand v. Shailendra Kumar Rai, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1494

Supreme Court Bans Two-Finger Test; Says It's Based On Patriarchal Mindset That Sexually Active Women Can't Be Raped.

The Apex Court has prohibited the "Two-Finger Test" in rape cases and warned that people conducting such tests will be held guilty of misconduct.

A bench comprising of Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli lamented while restoring the conviction in a rape case and observed It is regrettable that the "two-finger test" continues to be conducted even today.

"This court has time and again deprecated the use of two finger test in cases alleging rape and sexual assault. The so-called test has no scientific basis. It instead re-victimizes and re-traumatizes women. The two-finger test must not be conducted. The test is based on an incorrect assumption that a sexually active woman cannot be raped. Nothing can be further from the truth", the bench observed while pronouncing the judgment

6. Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1088

Apex Court held that a woman cannot be declined maternity leave under the Central Services (Leave Rules) 1972 with respect to her biological child on the ground that her spouse has two children from his earlier marriage.

The court stated that the grant of maternity leave under the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 is intended to ease the continuance of women in the workplace.

The Court further observed that it is a harsh reality if not for such provisions, many women would be compelled by social circumstances to give up work on the birth of a child if they are not granted leave and other facilitative measures.

7. Aparna Bhat v. State of M.P., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 230

The Supreme Court held that:

"33. Using rakhi tying as a condition for bail, transforms a molester into a brother, by a judicial mandate. This is wholly unacceptable, and has the effect of diluting and eroding the offence of sexual harassment. The act perpetrated on the survivor constitutes an offence in law, and is not a minor transgression that can be remedied by way of an apology, rendering community service, tying a rakhi or presenting a gift to the survivor, or even promising to marry her, as the case may be. The law criminalizes outraging the modesty of a woman. Granting bail, subject to such conditions, renders the court susceptible to the charge of re-negotiating and mediating justice between confronting parties in a criminal offence and perpetuating gender stereotThe Supreme Court had also issued a slew of directions in dealing with bail applications pertaining to sexual harassment cases and highlighted the need for sensitivity to be displayed by the judges while dealing with such cases. 

The author is an Advocate and can be reached at adv.mohitmatta@gmail.com for any queries.