OPINION Expanding Women’s Rights: Landmark judgments that translated constitutional vision to reality

The challenges faced by women in employment were not confined to the private sector.

• Supreme Court expanded women's rights through landmark judgments
• Court struck down discriminatory employment and pay practices
• Judgments affirmed equal inheritance, maintenance, guardianship rights

Did our AI summary help?

Article 15 of the Indian Constitution states that the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth, or any of them. It further guarantees that no citizen shall, on these grounds, be subjected to any disability or discrimination.

While this lofty ideal of equality was enshrined in the Constitution, it was not realised merely with the stroke of its enactment. Among many sections of society, women had to assert this right and struggle for its meaningful implementation.

Supreme Court expands scope of women’s rights

In this journey, the Supreme Court of India played an instrumental role. Through its jurisprudence and landmark judgments, the Court not only ensured the enforcement of equality and struck down discriminatory practices, but also progressively expanded the scope of women’s rights in India.

Marriage is not a ground to terminate employment

In Bombay Labour Union v. International Franchises Pvt. Ltd. (1965), the Supreme Court struck down a company rule which provided that if a woman employee got married, her service would automatically stand terminated.

The challenges faced by women in employment were not confined to the private sector. Even in the prestigious Indian Foreign Service, discriminatory rules compelled C. B. Muthamma, the first woman to join the service, to approach the Supreme Court to assert her rights. Rule 8(2) of the Indian Foreign Service (Conduct and Discipline) Rules required a woman officer to obtain government permission before marriage and allowed the government to ask her to resign if her marital or domestic commitments were considered to interfere with her duties.

“Traumatically transparent” discrimination

The Supreme Court strongly condemned this provision, observing that the discrimination against women was “traumatically transparent.” The Court pointed out that the same supposed risk existed when a male officer married, yet no such restriction applied to men.

Holding that Rule 8(2) imposed unfair conditions on women officers and coerced their resignation, the Court declared it discriminatory and in violation of Article 16 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality of opportunity in public employment.

Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, while delivering the judgment, remarked: “It makes me wonder whether Articles 14 and 16 belong to myth or to reality.”

Pushing back against unequal pay

Women not only had to struggle for access to employment but also for equal pay for equal work. In one instance, the Uttarakhand government was directed to amend discriminatory service rules that treated male and female teachers performing administrative duties differently in matters of salary and promotional opportunities. The Court emphasised that such unequal treatment violated the constitutional guarantee of equality.

The Supreme Court has consistently upheld the principle of equal pay for equal work. In Randhir Singh v. Union of India, the Court held that non-observance of this principle, embodied in Article 39(d) of the Constitution, amounts to a violation of Articles 14 and 16, which guarantee equality before the law and equality of opportunity in public employment. Similarly, in Mackinnon Mackenzie v. Audrey D’Costa, the Court struck down a differential pay structure between male and female stenographers and private secretaries performing identical work, holding it to be discriminatory.

Vishaka Guidelines offsets legislative indifference

The struggle of women did not end with securing equal pay. Sexual harassment at the workplace remained a serious impediment to women’s participation in public life. In this regard, the Supreme Court played a remarkably proactive role by laying down the landmark Vishaka Guidelines, which for the first time provided a legal framework to address sexual harassment at the workplace.

The Court also played a crucial role in strengthening maternity protections for women. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll), the Supreme Court held that the benefits of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961were not limited to regular employees but extended as well to casual and daily-wage workers on muster rolls. The Court observed that a woman in an advanced stage of pregnancy cannot be compelled to undertake hard labour, as it would be detrimental not only to her health but also to that of the foetus.

Prof. Poonam Saxena, former Vice-Chancellor of National Law University, Jodhpur, notes in her illuminating essay “Gender and Constitutional Justice” in the volume Justice for the Nation: Reflections on 75 Years of the Supreme Court of India, that through many important judgments, the Supreme Court has consistently protected and expanded women’s rights through its constitutional interpretation.

In the context of ensuring women’s safety at the workplace, Prof. Saxena highlights the importance of the judgment in Som Mittal v. Government of Karnataka. In this case, the Court directed establishments employing women to provide safe transportation to and from the workplace, along with adequate security arrangements. Alternatively, employers were required to ensure that women employees were not assigned night shifts unless such safety measures were in place. The judgment underscored the responsibility of employers to create a safe and secure working environment for women.

Securing inheritance rights

Apart from ensuring safety in the workplace, the Supreme Court’s decisions have also played an instrumental role in protecting women’s rights within the private sphere of the household, and securing equal rights in matters of property and inheritance. The Supreme Court has also played a crucial role in matters relating to marriage, maintenance, reproductive rights, adoption, and guardianship, ensuring that women’s rights are protected not only in the public sphere but also within the intimate spaces of family and personal life.

In Mary Roy and Others. v. State of Kerala and Others, the apex court upheld the equal rights to inheritance for Christian women in accordance with the Indian Succession Act, 1925. In Madhu Kishwar and Others v. State of Bihar, the Petitioner challenged the constitutionality of Sections 6, 7, 8, and 76 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, which excluded tribal women from inheriting land or property. The judgment held that tribal women have the same inheritance rights as men even in communities governed by customary laws.

One of the most landmark cases in Indian constitutional history is Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985), popularly known as the ‘Shah Bano case’. In this judgment, the Supreme Court upheld the right of a divorced Muslim woman to claim maintenance from her husband under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), even beyond the iddat period, affirming that this secular provision applied irrespective of religious personal laws.

In Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India, the Supreme Court delivered a significant judgment challenging the gender-biased interpretation of laws relating to parental guardianship. The Court held that the mother could also act as the natural guardian of a minor child during the father’s lifetime, rejecting the notion that the father alone had primacy in such matters. The decision reinforced the principle of gender equality in family law and affirmed that mothers have equal rights and authority in matters concerning the guardianship of their children.

Most recently, in Shayara Bano v. Union of India, the Supreme Court declared the practice of instant triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat) unconstitutional, holding that it violated the fundamental rights of Muslim women. The judgment marked a significant step in expanding women’s rights and affirming the principles of dignity, equality, and justice within personal laws.

Taken together, these judgments illustrate how the Supreme Court of India has played a transformative role in expanding the ambit of women’s rights. Through its evolving jurisprudence, the Supreme Court has not only interpreted the law but has also reshaped social realities, affirming that the promises of dignity, equality, and freedom enshrined in the Constitution belong as much to women as to men.