Gendering Equality: Court Decisions On Women’s Rights In India

FOCUS

The book compiles landmark judgments passed by the Supreme Court and high courts of India on women’s rights, covering aspects like workplace equality, rights within the family, sexual and reproductive autonomy and criminal laws. The Centre for Law & Policy Research (CLPR), a Bangalore-based NGO, published this book in the year 2024. It has been authored by Jayna Kothari and Nithya Rhea Rajshekhar.  

The book is designed as an advocacy tool for lawyers, activists and communities to strengthen legal awareness and push for systemic reforms. Each judgment is summarized with case details including case number, citation, court name specifying high court or the Supreme Court and composition of the bench of judges. 

This 67-page document has been divided into 2 sections: Introduction (Section 1); Judgement Summaries (Section 2).

    FACTOIDS

  1. In Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra (1999), the Court referenced the definition of “sexual harassment” from Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan and held that it is inclusive of “unwelcome sexually determined behaviours, emphasizing that sexual harassment can manifest as any form of sex discrimination when such conduct impact female employee’s work or creates a hostile environment.

  2. In Mackinnon Mackenzie v. Audrey D’Costa (1987), the Supreme Court ruled that employers cannot create artificial designations or job titles (for instance, “Lady Stenographers”) to pay women less than men for work of similar or identical nature. 

  3. In Vasantha R. v. Union of India (2000), Madras High Court struck down factory laws banning women from night shifts. The resource book summarises the Court’s observation which held that such provisions discriminate against women by prohibiting them from entering workplaces. 

  4. In Budhadev Karmaskar v. State of West Bengal (2022), the Supreme Court recognized the right of sex workers to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution and noted that their consent is paramount in every interaction with the state, including during raids and special rehabilitation schemes. Police was prohibited from harassing, arresting or victimizing workers in case of voluntary sex work. 

  5. The case of Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar (1999) noted that exclusion of Adivasi women from inheriting property as per customary laws was a violation of constitutionally guaranteed right to equality.

  6. The case of State of Jharkhand v. Shailendra Kumar Rai (2022) prohibited the unscientific medical examination practice of two-finger test as a “relic of patriarchal notion”, which neither proves nor disproves allegations of rape. 


    Focus and Factoids by Anjana Rajsri Anand. 

    PARI Library’s health archive project is part of an initiative supported by the Azim Premji University to develop a free-access repository of health-related reports relevant to rural India.

AUTHOR

Jayna Kothari, Nithya Rhea Rajshekhar

Co-Authors: Disha Chaudhari, Anjana Rajsri Anand, Naibedya Dash and Priya Chaudhary

COPYRIGHT

Centre for Law and Policy Research, Bangalore

PUBLICATION DATE

2024

SHARE