Tag:

supreme court

Menstrual Leaves Should No Longer Be Up for Debate

by Parika Singh 08/12/2024

written by Parika Singh

By Parika Singh

The Karnataka government’s proposal to allocate 6 days of menstrual leave per year for women in the public and private sector will reopen debate and discussions on its requirement in the workplace. The absence of National Legislation in India that provides for menstrual leaves to working women is a pivotal indicator of the status accorded to women’s issues and needs in parliament. 77 years after independence, we have three other states- Bihar, Kerala, and Orissa, and a handful of private companies such as Swiggy, Zomato, Magzter, etc, which have taken steps to acknowledge and extend support for this universal biological phenomenon.

Each month a woman’s uterus undergoes a range of complex physiological changes through which the outer lining thickens to prepare and preserve a fertilized embryo and an egg travels down the fallopian tube. For a process so intrinsically linked to the existence and evolution of the human species, it scarcely receives its due significance in society. On the contrary, Indian society, particularly in rural areas, attaches a stigma of impurity to it- shunning women to dark corners of their homes, further attributing to the misinformation surrounding menstruation. So, what exactly happens during a period?

To shed the excess lining, the uterus contracts and relaxes itself periodically to remove the lining, which travels through the cervix and out of the vagina. Blood, tissue, and nutrients leave a woman’s body every month sometimes leading to nutritional deficiencies such as anemia. Hormonal changes involved can affect mental health and stress levels, and the contractions can be severe enough to impact daily activities. According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), USA, 84.1% of women experience some form of pain during the menstrual cycle from mild to acute with every 1 in 10 women finding it debilitating, especially those who suffer from Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome (PCOS), Endometriosis, or Uterine Fibroids.

And yet, we cannot come up with a national policy that accedes the option to avail one or two days leave in an entire month to rest. Worse, we question it.

Women in key public positions such as former Women and Child Welfare Minister Smriti Irani opposed a legal framework around menstrual leave and considered it a private affair that need not be discussed with employers, perpetuating a sense of shame or embarrassment that gets ingrained in teenagers and prevents open conversations and awareness. Prominent journalist Barkha Dutt called the idea ‘paternalistic and silly’ while at the same time noting the reduction of women in the workforce, lack of access to basic menstrual hygiene products in rural India, and absence of girls from school during their period- ironically all the reasons why such leave is crucial for the health, safety, and upliftment of women in the country.

The Supreme Court this year, while asking the Centre “to look into the matter at a policy level” acknowledged the role it would play in encouraging more women to seek employment. At the same time, it reiterated the regressive stand taken by opponents that it would prevent employers from hiring women. For a constitutional court that aims to promote social justice and protect the fundamental rights of life and equality of opportunity at the workplace, this statement was disappointing, to say the least. Any accommodations granted for the well-being of employees could be inconvenient for employers, and every concession could lead to a potential loss in income. Does that mean all welfare laws should be suspended because of the fear of potential hiring?

The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, special provisions enshrined in Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution for women and children and reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, respectively, all impose liabilities, grant concessions, and require additional amenities at the workplace but the government or courts did not let hiring factor come in the way of promulgation of this Acts. Interestingly, the discourse surrounding paternity leave in the private sector, currently available in the public sector through the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, brings up the possibilities of societal stigma and professional penalties, but no one seems to think it would prevent men from being hired in the first place.

Furthermore, Bihar introduced a two-day menstrual leave policy as early as 1992. Other countries in Asia such as Indonesia, Taiwan, South Korea, and Vietnam have had period policies for several years with Japan paving the way in 1947. Europe has finally begun to catch up with Spain announcing a national policy in 2023. Individual companies such as Coexist in the UK and Nuvento in the US have taken the initiative to introduce paid period leaves. And so far, no data has been presented by any of these corporations or countries that would identify substantial economic loss on account of it.

In fact, the Australian company Modibodi has reported increased engagement and productivity after its implementation since the women felt valued and worked with increased efficiency after adequate rest and recuperation.

On the other hand, a 2019 study conducted by Radbound University discovered working through pain resulted in an average productivity loss of 9 days per person per year in companies. The issue is only exacerbated for non-binary, gender queer, and trans persons who are susceptible to violence and discrimination upon disclosing their menstrual status and might not work in places equipped with adequate provisions for their privacy and safety. While individual policies and state-level measures are steps in the right direction, India now needs a country-wide law for people who menstruate in the public, private, as well as unorganized sectors.

An attempt was made to present such a bill three times in the parliament- the Menstruation Bill, 2017, by Mr. Nirong Ering, the Women’s Sexual, Reproductive and Menstrual Rights Bill, 2018, by Dr. Shashi Tharoor, and recently, the Right of Women to Menstrual Leave and Free Access to Menstrual Health Products Bill, 2022, by Mr. Hibi Eden. Two years later, the Central Government has not taken any measures to enact or implement it in the present, nor indicated its desire to do so in the future. Whether the legislature formulates a national policy or not, its necessity and positive impact on working women can no longer be denied.

08/12/2024 0 comments 32 views

The Shrinking Public Spaces For Children: The Fear After The Kolkata Rape Case And The Potential Over-Reliance On Screens

by Editor 08/12/2024

written by Editor

By Bhoomika Choudhury

The recent Kolkata rape case has reignited discussions around the safety of public spaces, particularly for women and girls, in India. The brutal nature of the crime has left the nation grappling with the pervasive fear that drives families to confine their children indoors in the name of protection. But this confinement, while intended to keep them safe, may expose them to another set of dangers in the digital realm. I wonder what kind of future we are crafting for the next generation—a future where their access to physical spaces is restricted due to safety fears, and where their increasing reliance on digital spaces exposes them to the predatory practices of big tech?

In a country that is producing some of the world’s leading tech professionals, there is a deep irony in the fact that our inability to ensure the safety of children in both physical and digital environments might lead to a generation trapped by the very technologies we celebrate. The challenges are immense—how do we ensure the safety of our children when both public and digital spaces are fraught with risks? As The Anxious Generation by Jonathan Haidt argues, the intersection of fear, technology, and safety concerns creates a complex dilemma for parents and society alike, one that demands urgent attention and action.

The Shrinking of Public Spaces

The fear following the Kolkata rape case, much like previous such incidents, may lead to a further shrinking of public spaces for children, especially girls. This phenomenon isn’t new. The book Why Loiter? by Shilpa Phadke, Sameera Khan, and Shilpa Ranade, explores how public spaces in Indian cities are becoming increasingly inaccessible to women due to the pervasive fear of sexual violence. The authors argue that this fear is not just about the potential for violence but also about the societal expectations that women should not “loiter” in public spaces without a purpose. This is particularly true for young girls, who are often kept away from public spaces under the guise of protection.

However, this so-called protection comes at a significant cost. As public spaces become increasingly off-limits, children are pushed indoors, where screens and digital devices become their primary source of interaction with the world. While this may seem like a safer alternative, it raises critical questions about the kind of environment we’re creating for our children. Are they truly safer indoors, or are we merely swapping one set of dangers for another?

The Digital Danger

The over-reliance on screens and digital platforms is not without its perils. As The Anxious Generation highlights, the constant use of social media and digital devices can lead to heightened levels of anxiety, depression, and social isolation among teenagers. Moreover, the digital world is not immune to the dangers of exploitation and abuse. Big tech companies are increasingly finding ways to manipulate and take advantage of young users, capitalizing on their vulnerabilities for profit.

In this context, the confinement of children to their homes and the subsequent over-reliance on digital devices can be seen as a double-edged sword. While it may protect them from the immediate dangers of the outside world, it also exposes them to the insidious dangers of the digital world, where they are vulnerable to online predators, cyberbullying, and the negative mental health impacts of excessive screen time.

The Inadequacy of Legal and Policy Frameworks

The legal and policy frameworks in India have often been found wanting when it comes to addressing these complex issues. While there are laws in place to deal with sexual crimes and cybercrimes, their enforcement is often inconsistent and inadequate. Moreover, there is a lack of comprehensive policies that address the intersection of physical and digital safety for children. The current legal framework tends to focus on reactive measures—punishing perpetrators after the fact—rather than proactive measures that could prevent these crimes from occurring in the first place.

The Need for Policy and Societal Change

There is an urgent need for policies that address the dual threats of unsafe public spaces and the dangers of digital environments. On one hand, urban planning and law enforcement must work towards making public spaces safer for women and children. On the other, there needs to be stricter regulation of big tech companies to protect young users from exploitation.

Beyond policy, societal change is crucial. Parents, educators, and communities must work together to reclaim public spaces for children and ensure that digital spaces are used responsibly. It is not just about keeping children safe; it is about ensuring that they have the freedom to explore, learn, and grow in environments that do not pose a constant threat.

Conclusion

The Kolkata rape case has brought to the forefront the challenges of ensuring safety in both public and digital spaces. This is not just a societal issue; it’s a national crisis that threatens the very fabric of our future. The complexities involved in ensuring the safety of our children in both public and digital spaces are vast, and the solutions are far from simple. I don’t have a clear-cut solution to propose, but what I do know is that we need to urgently foster a national debate around this issue. The future of our children is at stake, and it is imperative that we address these concerns with the seriousness they deserve. We need to confront the harsh realities of our societal structures, legal frameworks, and technological advancements to ensure that our children can grow up in a world that is safe, just, and equitable. This crisis demands collective introspection and decisive action because the safety and well-being of our kids—and their future—depend on it.

08/12/2024 0 comments 25 views

Kolkata Rape And Murder Suo Moto Proceedings: A Call For Enhanced Safety Standards!

by Guest Author 08/12/2024

written by Guest Author

“The nation cannot await a rape or murder for real changes on the ground.” – Supreme Court

By Lauren Prem

Talks on safety standards are always at its peak whenever the nation is shaken with a horrendous rape case. Gradually, the talk dies down until another brutal incident goes viral. This repetitive cycle needs to be put to an end and safety standards need to be practically enforced.

The Supreme Court bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices Manoj Mishra and JB Pardiwala, on 20^th August 2024, shed light on the recurrent safety issues faced by women in our country, during the Suo moto proceedings on the Kolkata doctor’s rape and murder case. The crime took place on 9^th August 2024 and the talk on safety has spurred since then. However, Justice DY Chandrachud emphasizes on ensuring safety in actuality through national protocols.

The Supreme Court, via its order, sets up a National Task Force (NTF) in order to address the pressing need of safety at this juncture. The NTF consists of ten members possessing expertise in the medical field – Vice Admiral Arti Sarin, Director General, Medical Services (Navy), Dr D Nageshwar Reddy, Chairman and Managing Director, Asian Institute of Gastroenterology and AIG Hospitals, Hyderabad, Dr M Srinivas, Director of Delhi-AIIMS, Dr Pratima Murthy, Director, National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS), Bengaluru, Dr Goverdhan Dutt Puri, Executive Director, AIIMS Jodhpur, Dr Saumitra Rawat, Chairperson, Institute of Surgical Gastroenterology, GI and HPB Onco-Surgery and Liver Transplantation and Member, Board of Management, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi, Professor Anita Saxena, Vice-Chancellor, Pandit B D Sharma Medical University, Rohtak, former Dean of Academics, Chief Cardio thoracic Centre and Head Cardiology Department AIIMS, Delhi, Dr Pallavi Saple, Dean, Grant Medical College and Sir JJ Group of Hospitals, Mumbai, and Dr Padma Srivastava, formerly Professor at the Department of Neurology, AIIMS Delhi.

Justice DY Chandrachud states that the NTF, in formulating an action plan must pay regard to two primary aspects – preventing gender-based violence against medical professionals and providing a national protocol to ensure safe working conditions for interns, residents, senior residents, doctors, nurses and all medical professionals.

A crucial measure put forth by the court is ‘triaging medical departments and places within the hospital’ based on the possibility of violence. It further states “Areas such as emergency rooms and intensive care units are prone to a greater degree of violence and may possibly need additional security in place to deal with any untoward incident.” This step ensures that safety measures are well-planned and implemented on a need basis, rather than adopting a generalised approach of safety that may not adequately address the issue at hand.

The court also presses the need for infrastructural development within the hospital premises that align with the goals of safety that this protocol aims to achieve. The court suggested separate resting rooms and duty rooms for male doctors, female doctors, male nurses and female nurses, installation of CCTV cameras at all entrance and exit points of the hospital and corridors leading up to the patient rooms.

The medical professionals for whom protection is given under this judgement encompasses “every medical professional” including doctors, other medical students undergoing compulsory rotating medical internships as a part of their MMBS course, resident doctors, senior resident doctors and nurses including those who are nursing interns. A broader interpretation is purposefully given to extend protection to all stakeholders.

The court rightly recognises the fact that laws and increased punishments are not sufficient to tackle the safety issues faced by female professionals. Rather, there must be execution of the ideals that are often merely laid down on paper.

Beyond providing guidelines for safety, the judgement touches upon important rights that form the bedrock of a democracy, although these rights are not explicitly provided under the Constitution. The court observes that the equality code enshrined in our constitution cannot be met if the safety of women is at stake.

With regard to the Kolkata rape and murder incident in particular, the court states “West Bengal should ensure that the power of the state is not unleashed on peaceful protestors.” Protests, when peaceful, uphold the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under article 19(1)(a) of our Constitution. Protests reflect an unmet need or an unfulfilled promise. If allowed, protests can do no harm than nudge the concerned authorities to improve the status quo.

Apart from implementation of safety measures in the workplace, it must be ensured that peaceful protestors do not feel unsafe. The nature of a true democracy is often unveiled in the kind of rights it protects. A death of the most basic rights marks the death of a democracy!

08/12/2024 0 comments 55 views

Broken, Battered, Taunted, Killed And Misjudged

by Elsa Joel 08/12/2024

written by Elsa Joel

Dr Elsa Lycias Joel

(Names have been changed to protect identities)

‘Boys will be boys. They make mistakes’. What does this statement convey? That nobody should be held accountable for their sudden fetishes or perversions towards women? Come on, display some of that social consciousness that is bandied about so much in official and international speeches about how Indian women are revered as goddesses.

India may be booming but not for all women. Two of the country’s most serious challenges are how to address women’s safety and how to deliver speedy justice. 12 years ago, the whole world stood stunned. The victim was celebrated as Nirbhaya. How ridiculous to remember and address hapless victims with such titles! In reality, she would’ve gone through matchless pain and fear before she died a brutal death. By addressing victims with titles, who are we trying to comfort? People have come to realize the reality long ago. It was those perverts who were fearless to commit a crime of that intensity with a heinous intent. Around the time of the 2012 gang rape and murder, India recorded 24,923 rape cases, which is about 68.28 cases per day as per the National Crime Records Bureau. So, should India be proud or ashamed of the thousands of ‘Nirbhayas’? While it took years to punish the convicts, one walked out free and fearless with a new identity, a grant of 10,000 Rs and a sewing machine, only because he was a juvenile. Only after the rapist, the most brutal of all, got to walk free, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act was passed in 2015. Then, I knew violence against women would never end. There is a clear pattern to the way the minds of rapists have evolved in our country given the speed and manner in which amendments evolve and justice is delivered. Timely justice may not be a panacea for all injustice that plague us but it could be a precursor to other reforms. Nothing but the severity of the punishment will act as a deterrent.

The current rape crisis speaks of something even more worrisome – a society that is out of touch with its women. By all accounts, the Indian women never had it so good. Due to the generosity of a patriarchal society, they are all flush with problems, much more they can handle. Citizens’ protests that take various forms and shapes are indeed comforting. However, the fruits of women’s safety or liberation cannot be allowed to be negated by a societal system that is striking at the very root of the country’s well-being. Sensible recommendations that have been made by committees and well-meaning individuals will not deter crimes unless they are acted upon in due earnestness. Probably, salvaging the process of justice from tangles of state intimidation or political pressure is a herculean task by itself. At this juncture, I remember the Best Bakery case in which, for the first time, the apex court shifted the trial out of a state.

The fear of being violated is so strong, Indian women can taste it. It is shameful that few public servants have the audacity to declare that public spaces are not meant to be the right places for the right kind of women at the wrong time. When did a seminar hall in a medical college turn unsafe for a trainee doctor? Was she inappropriately clothed? What a handful of political elite say is not different from what a convicted criminal says. Enough is enough. As long as naming and shaming the victim continues in addition to gracing them with unbefitting titles, violence against women in all forms will continue with a plight of pandemic proportions. We have had enough such horror stories of rape, torture and murder that should make the legislature and executive give serious thought rather than analyse the uniqueness of each violation. What clumsy legislation have we got? Should it take 40 years for the Parliament to pass The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 2013 to amend the IPC to allow death penalty only in rape cases where the accompanying brutality leads to death or leaves the victim in a persistent vegetative state? Shrina R Shanbaug, an Indian nurse lay in a vegetative state for almost 42 years after she was sodomised and strangulated with metal chains in 1973. Are rape laws far from adequate or do they lack will power? Sohanlal Valmiki, the main sodomist must be caught and hanged, if he is alive, instead of celebrating Aruna for giving India a passive euthanasia law. In 1972, a 16-year-old girl Sheila was raped inside a police station by two policemen who were set free by the court just because the victim wasn’t injured. After 9 years, the anti-rape law was amended. I have every reason to assume that those two men in uniform would have had a free run until the law was amended.

The Supreme Court’s verdict was based on the following three arguments:

Sheila did not vocally express her non-consent during the ordeal.
There was a lack of bruising on her body.
She was ‘habituated to sexual intercourse’ based on the two-finger-test

We have umpteen days and nights to reclaim. Decades away from Sheila and Shrina tragedy, the pertinent question we ought to ask ourselves is how far have we come?

Preeti Singh, Vamika, Manika Debnath, Pranjali Singh, Kasifa and many more are not the only ones to have gone through such severe sexual assaults. ‘Nirbhaya Juvenile’ who assaulted 8-year-old was acquitted. How ridiculous! Rapists must be tarred with the same brush, no matter how old the victims are. What is mystifying is the fact that gang-raping of someone below 18 years of age is considered a heinous offence punishable by death whereas gang rape, torment and murder of an adult is not. Public outcry and protests can caution lawmakers against semantic hair-splitting on defining the nature of violence, warning that ‘certain criteria’ will remain a stumbling block in drafting a perfect statute with no loopholes. Complacency should never cost us more promising lives. As for the law enforcement and investigative agencies, it is not too early to tell the real story of RG Kar Medical College and Hospital on August 9^th.

Opinion Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are solely the author’s and do not reflect the opinions and beliefs of The Womb.

08/12/2024 0 comments 25 views

Champions of Change: Supreme Court’s Verdict on Strengthening Women’s Maintenance Rights

by Guest Author 08/12/2024

written by Guest Author

By Lauren Prem

Women in India, like in most developing countries across the world, have suffered long-standing oppression to the point where taglines such as “striving for gender equality”, “women empowerment” and “women rights” are so popular and basic for any write-up title. In search of a unique and catchy title, I opened ChatGPT to send a prompt – “write an empowering and catchy quote on women who have discriminatory personal laws in India” and received the following response:

“Women are not just subjects of personal laws; they are champions of change, fighting for justice and equality in every corner of India.”

I was pleasantly shocked to see the response especially because it reflected the current scenario of Muslim women in India that resulted in a Supreme Court verdict reiterating the maintenance rights of Muslim women under section 125 of the CrPC in Mohd. Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana [2024 SCC OnLine SC 1686] as already held in the famous Shah Bano case [Mohammed Ahmed Khan v Shah Bano Begum, 1985 (2) SCC 556].

A petition for appeal, before the Supreme Court, was moved by the husband on grounds that a woman cannot avail maintenance benefits under section 125 of the CrPC in the presence of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1986 act’), which is a specific law. The contention is premised on the well-established rule of interpretation that a specific law will prevail over a general law on the same matter, in case of any conflict as regards which law will apply.

The court, on 10^th July 2024, passed a verdict stating that a Muslim woman can avail maintenance benefits under section 125 of the CrPC despite there being a specific law. The court recognised that the 1986 act provided for maintenance only till the iddat period, which ran contrary to the jurisprudence behind maintenance. The purpose of maintenance is to equip women to lead a dignified life even after the cessation of her marriage and the 1986 act does not solve the purpose as it fails to provide for adequate maintenance, despite the objective of the act grounded in ensuring access to justice. The court, in this case, went beyond mere application of the 1986 act and considered foundational jurisprudential concepts like justice and equity.

Our legal history has repeatedly shown us that landmark judgements are not an outcome of mere interpretation of the law. Rather, they are a result of meticulous interpretation of judges who bear ‘justice’ in their hearts and minds, not just the legal provisions. The basic structure doctrine that forms the very basis of present-day adjudication, would not have existed today, had the judiciary stayed aloof of judicial activism or anything beyond strictly interpreting the law.

The doctrine exists solely because judges feared that the constitution would be misused in the absence of a strong framework to determine constitutionality of a particular legislation. In simple terms, they had justice in their hearts and minds, in addition to possessing knowledge of the law.

The present judgement is also one that reflects a justice-oriented approach, not merely in the outcome but through its words. The court stressed upon the aspect of adequacy and sufficiency of maintenance in answering the legal question of which law would apply to Muslim women. Had the court taken a formalistic approach (restricted to interpretation of the law alone), it would have rendered the 1986 act applicable, thereby providing no opportunity to Muslim women to opt for the CrPC provision.

In addition, the CrPC provision has also undergone an amendment in the year 2001 [by Section 2(i)(a), act no. 50] to delete the words “not exceeding 500 rupees in the whole”, thereby eliminating any kind of upper cap on the amount of maintenance. The court highlights the aspect of how this new amendment being passed subsequent to the the 1986 act, renders the latter legislation insignificant. The approach of the court in this regard also revolves around the question of which law would benefit women better, rather than delving into the technicalities of applying each law as every ordinary judge would do so.

As Huey Newton said “Laws should be made to serve the people. People should not be made to serve the laws.” This moral principle is prominent in the context of deciding which law would apply to a particular scenario or class of persons. The court abided by this principle by opening opportunities for Muslim women to choose the CrPC provision, rather than making them subjects of the 1986 act.

The court has been particular in ensuring that no decision is taken so as to deprive women of enjoying the rights guaranteed under our constitution. This cardinal principle of not holding back or non-retrogression has been evolved through many judgements and established as a definite rule. This principle has been followed through a purposive interpretation which holds that the nature of the 1986 act is akin to a social legislation and welfare lies at its heart.

This decision also ensures that undue financial burden is not placed on the husband as section 127(3)(b) of the CrPC deals with a situation where maintenance has already been paid through customary or personal law. The provision bestows power upon the magistrate to cancel orders made under section 125 of the CrPC, in situations where maintenance is already paid. In essence, the court has merely opened the possibility of opting for a comparatively higher welfare provision and has not in any way prompted double payment of maintenance by the husband. The judicial intent is rooted solely in upholding the interests of women, as article 15(3) aims to do.

The judiciary has succeeded in meeting people’s expectations through a purposive interpretation that looks beyond the letters of the law and goes on to honour the spirit of law. Further, it has proven that women are not subjects of personal laws. With increasing access to education, women have proven to be champions of change striving for equality in every nook and corner of India and the judiciary has facilitated the same by setting a good precedent.

08/12/2024 0 comments 35 views

A Sign of Obsoleteness: Marital Rape exception in the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita

by Guest Author 08/12/2024

written by Guest Author

By Lauren Prem

The marital rape exception (referred to as the ‘MRE’ by the Delhi HC) has been a contentious issue in the legal world. The introduction of new criminal laws, that have come into effect on 1^st July, have fuelled the debate further. The Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNS’), as the ruling government claims, intends to wipe out archaic traces of the colonial era embedded in the IPC. However, marital rape being retained in the new law, as an exception to the rape offence, has attracted criticisms that question the very purpose of the criminal law overhaul in the country. This article aims to evaluate judicial views on this matter while making a strong case for deleting the MRE to uphold individual liberty.

What Does The BNS Say?

Clause 63 of the BNS provides for an exception to rape which states that ‘sexual acts by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under eighteen years of age, is not rape.’ The corresponding provision in the IPC that also provides for MRE uses the term ‘the wife not being under fifteen years of age’ in place of ‘the wife not being under eighteen years of age.’ Hence, the only change in the BNS has been an increase in the wife’s age from fifteen to eighteen to avail the exception. Basically, the judgement in Independent thought v UOI, (AIR 2017 SC 4904) has been reaffirmed by increasing the wife’s age to eighteen. However, BNS still retains the crux of the provision in the IPC as regards MRE, that was a subject of heavy debate and criticism.

Judicial Opinions And The Test Of Constitutionality

The judicial views in this matter are divergent and rarely reflect any consensus. Due to this, the matter was raised before the apex court. The recent petition Hrishikesh Sahoo v. State of Karnataka (Case no. SLP(Cr.) 4063-4064 of 2022) challenging the MRE, to be heard by CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Mishra, is currently pending before the apex court. This part of the article aims to examine the previous arguments considered by the courts regarding the MRE and analyse the validity of judicial opinions in light of fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution.

The Supreme Court, has thus far, failed to settle the issue regarding the constitutionality of the MRE, even when the opportunity presented itself in the Independent Thought v. Union of India and Anr. case (AIR 2017 SC 4904). In this case, the Supreme Court limited itself to the question as to whether sexual intercourse between a man and his wife being a girl between 15 and 18 years of age is rape? Exception 2 to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC) answers this in the negative. The Supreme Court held that sexual intercourse with a girl below 18 years of age is rape regardless of whether she is married or not. However it refused to conside the issue of whether sexual intercourse with one’s wife, who is above 18 years of age, without her consent, amount to marital rape.

The Delhi High Court (2022) in a recent case, however, has delivered a split verdict after receiving four petitions challenging the constitutionality of the MRE as violative of articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 21. This case challenged the MRE provision in the IPC, which is slightly different from the corresponding BNS provision in the aspect of the wife’s age. In this case, while Justice Rajiv Shakdher held in favour of declaring Exception 2 to Section 375 of IPC as unconstitutional, Justice Hari Shankar ruled against striking down MRE. Justice Shakdher amongst many arguments he gave in favour of declaring MRE unconstitutional, also said – while sex workers have been invested with the power to say ‘no’ by law, a married woman has not. This petition is now challenged before the Supreme Court.

Two major contentions presented in the petition are relevant for the MRE provision in the BNS as well. Firstly, the MRE is violative of article 14 as it metes out different treatment to married and unmarried women as regards the offence of rape. Secondly, the MRE violates the right to bodily autonomy of a woman read under article 21 – right to life. Thirdly, the MRE is violative of the right to freedom of speech and expression under article 19(1)(a) as this right encompasses within itself, the right of a woman to assert her sexual autonomy. Justice Rajiv Shakdher ruled in favour of the Petitioners.

On the other hand, Justice Hari Shankar in this dissent relied on two major arguments. Firstly, the MRE is not violative of article 14 because there is a reasonable classification made under the said article. In other words, the distinction between married and unmarried women as regards the offence of rape, is a reasonable as well as a permissible classification.

The doctrine of reasonable classification consists of two ingredients – the classification made between two classes must be intelligible and there must be a nexus between the classification made and object sought to be achieved by such classification. Further elaborating the argument, he held that the classification between married persons and unmarried persons is intelligible and that the classification bears a nexus with the object of preserving the sanctity of marriage as an institution. In simple terms, he suggests that a husband cannot be termed as a ‘rapist’ as it would erode the sanctity of marriage as an institution, thereby indicating his inclination towards placing marriage at a higher pedestal.

Secondly, the Attorney General representing the state argued that the MRE is not violative of a woman’s right to bodily autonomy as there are other remedies like divorce, available to the affected wife (para 312). The Attorney General argued that the MRE is not violative of a woman’s right to freedom of speech and expression because consent for sexual intercourse obtains permanence through marriage itself.

The verdict passed by the judges reflect opposing views, representing two sides of the debate concerning the MRE.

Additional Arguments And Commentary

The arguments advanced by the Attorney General representing the state, reflects a tilt towards the institution of marriage and a failure to strike a balance between protecting state institutions and upholding individual rights. One of the broad arguments advanced by the Attorney General is that the husband acquiring consent for sexual intercourse is ‘not in conformity with the Hindu religion.’ Criminal laws in India are secular and are framed based on how a particular society views crime, rather than catering to the needs of any particular religion. Using religion as a means to propel state-sanctioned violence will destroy the secular fabric of our nation.

Justice Hari Shankar, in his judgement, mentions that judges must honour the legislature’s exclusive domain and refrain from meddling with the MRE as it was drafted with a purpose of protecting the institution of marriage. However, striking down the provision as unconstitutional, is well within the domain of the judiciary – an institution tasked with playing a watchdog role to protect the constitution.

Several judges have used the same reasoning regarding the ‘limits of judicial powers’ to refrain from addressing the MRE issue. The legislature, in drafting the BNS act, severely missed an opportunity to resolve this long-standing issue and uphold women rights.

Conclusion

This article has explored various facets to the Marital Rape Exception (MRE) debate – one that has erupted once again since the effectuation of the new criminal laws on July 1, 2024. There is a strong case for its deletion on grounds that it hinders women from completely exercising their rights. The MRE dilemma adds perplexity to the legal debate especially that the debate involves consideration of social perspectives, such as what social institutions like marriage mean. Additionally, debate sheds light on the need for stronger judicial voices – ones that uphold fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution, rather than being held back by obsolete societal norms that handicap women entering social institutions, from accessing justice.

08/12/2024 0 comments 31 views

Steering the ‘Menstrual Leave Policy’ Debate in a Legal Direction

by Guest Author 08/12/2024

written by Guest Author

By Lauren Prem

The long-standing debate regarding menstrual leave policy (hereinafter referred to as ‘the policy’) has erupted once again since the Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking menstrual leave, on 8^th July 2024. A three-judge bench consisting of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Mishra stated that the court cannot take up policy matters that fall clearly within the executive’s domain and in turn, directed the government to frame a policy for the same. A concern flagged by CJI DY Chandrachud while dismissing the petition revolves around gender representation as it is feared that recruiters will have lesser preferences for women due to the ‘paid leave’ factor.

While gender representation is largely viewed as a social issue, legal experts have contributed to this debate by voicing out their concerns regarding legislating on menstrual leave to ensure strict implementation.

Legal luminaries believe that biological differences must be taken into account in order to ensure inclusivity in the work place. In other words, women should not be held back from success due to something beyond their control. In addition to the argument concerning equality, it is widely acknowledged that health is an important part of performance and productivity and that the policy will ensure a healthier women workforce. As Supreme Court advocate Karuna Nundy shares ‘productivity is much better when people are feeling well.’

The concern flagged by Justice DY Chandrachud lies at the heart of this ‘menstrual leave policy’ debate. The concern holds a presumption that a line of reasoning based on inclusivity would prove to be counterproductive as recruiters will be keen on selecting those who can offer higher productive hours. Further, studies show lesser female participation in workforce due to maternity leave and it is feared that the same would be the case with this policy also. Some lawyers also believe that the menstrual leave policy does not boil down to a ‘gender issue’ because every gender comes with its own set of ailments.

Arguments revolving around equality forms the very core of the menstrual leave policy debate. It is argued that women should not be discriminated based on their menstrual status. Arguments, along similar lines, ultimately narrow down to Aristotle’s notion of ‘treating equals equally and unequals unequally’ which has formed the crux of the equality code imbibed in article 14 of the constitution. Against the backdrop of this debate, unequals are being treated equally, as in, women who undergo menstrual pain are treated equally to men who do not undergo such pain. This, in turn, hinders women from achieving their full potential.

Another perspective of the menstrual leave policy laid out in the dismissed petition is that companies and workplaces in some states have already implemented the policy and it is discriminatory to women in those states that do not have such a policy, due to federalism. In other words, women within India are treated differently in different states. However, advocate Nundy considers this to be an incorrect interpretation of article 14. The reason might have been that policies are not justiciable per se and cannot be violative of fundamental rights. This pushed the debate further to a need for a legislation on this matter.

Advocate Abha Singh from the Bombay HC also interprets this policy in light of article 14. She demonstrates how the classification of leave made for women passes the test of reasonable classification under this particular article. This test has two requirements. Firstly, the classification made must be intelligible. Secondly, there must be a rational nexus between the classification and the object sought to be achieved by such classification. She expounds the objective of this policy to be one that ensures women do not compromise on their health and well-being, which hinders productivity. The classification made is intelligible and it bears a rational nexus with the object it seeks to achieve, that is, productivity through ensuring health.

Several constitutional principles point towards a maternity benefit policy to be put in place. For instance, article 39(a) of the Constitution states that the state must ensure ‘the health and strength of workers, men, and women.’ While article 42 provides that the state must ‘make provisions for securing just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief.’ Article 47 states that the state has a duty to ‘raise standards of living and improve public health.’ In the absence of a policy, women may be forced to work with poor health conditions in order to avail their fully salary. This deteriorates their health further and contravenes the obligations of the state laid down in the directive principles of state policy.

Article 15(3) states that the state shall make provisions for the betterment of women and children. On top of this, women have a right to work under article 19(1)(g), which they cannot fully exercise without proper working conditions during menstruation. Supreme Court advocate Pallavi Pratap highlights that women do not have access to clean and hygienic alternatives at their workplace to cater to their menstrual needs.

The menstrual leave policy debate has opened discussions in legal, social and ethical spheres. While most arguments run along the lines of social transformation, gender representation and productivity, their roots can be located in legal jurisprudence and constitutional principles that strengthen women rights. Therefore, various interpretations of article 14 by different advocates and perceptions of the equality code form the heart and soul of this debate.

The equality code under article 14 of the Constitution should undoubtedly prevail over issues of productivity, that are wrongly located in work presence rather than efficiency and contribution, especially because the classification in this particular scenario clearly passes the test of intelligible differentia. Finally, directive principles of state policy, which are non-justiciable guidelines to be followed by the state, also advocate for the menstrual leave policy in addition to fundamental rights under part III of the Constitution.

The ball is now in the Government’s court and it remains to be seen whether the government comes up with a uniform policy on menstrual leave for women across India.

08/12/2024 0 comments 41 views

“It Is Patriarchal And Sexist To Suggest That A Woman Can Not Be Believed When She States That She Was Raped, Merely For The Reason That She Is Sexually Active”: Hon’ble Supreme Court

by Editor 08/12/2024

written by Editor

By Srishti Sarraf

On 31^st October 2022, in its recent judgement titled The State of Jharkhand versus Shailendra Kumar Rai @ Pandav Raidated (Criminal Appeal No 1441 of 2022), a division bench of the hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of hon’ble Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli has equivocally pointed out that “whether a woman is “habituated to sexual intercourse” or “habitual to sexual intercourse” is irrelevant for the purposes of determining whether the ingredients of Section 375 of the IPC are present in a particular case.” The Hon’ble Bench further objected to the insensitive and unscientific practice of conducting a “two-finger test” and declared that “any person who conducts the “two-finger test” or per vaginum examination while examining a person alleged to have been subjected to a sexual assault shall be guilty of misconduct.” The Hon’ble justices went on to observe that “this so-called test has no scientific basis and neither proves nor disproves allegations of rape. It instead re-victimizes and re-traumatizes women who may have been sexually assaulted, and is an affront to their dignity…….. The so-called test is based on the incorrect assumption that a sexually active woman cannot be raped. Nothing could be further from the truth – a woman’s sexual history is wholly immaterial while adjudicating whether the accused raped her. Further, the probative value of a woman’s testimony does not depend upon her sexual history.”

Notably, this view came as a parting remark in the case wherein the deceased, a rape victim, in her ‘fardbeyan’ alleged that on the afternoon of the fateful day the accused “pushed her to the ground and committed rape upon her while threatening to kill her if she sounded an alarm. She called out for help, at which point the respondent allegedly poured kerosene on her and set her on fire with a matchstick. Her cries for help led her grandfather, mother, and a resident of the village to come to her room. The respondent is alleged to have fled the scene upon seeing them.” She was immediately rushed to the hospital where she was admitted and underwent treatment for the injuries sustained by her. Unfortunately, she lost the battle against life after about a month and as per the post-mortem report death was caused by septicaemia, which was a result of the deep burn injuries sustained by her. Meanwhile, the case was lodged against the accused based on her ‘fardbeyan’ and upon the completion of the investigation, a charge sheet under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 was submitted for offences under Sections 307, 341, 376 and 448 of the IPC. Notably, a supplementary charge sheet was also submitted regarding Section 302 of the IPC post the death of the victim.

In the course of the investigation, a Medical Board was constituted to examine the victim when she was undergoing treatment for her injuries. The Medical Board believed that “the deceased was about 16 years of age, and the possibility of intercourse could not be ruled out although no definite opinion could be given in this regard.” However, in the report, it was stated that “a vaginal examination revealed that two fingers were admitted easily.” On this point, the Medical Officer in her cross-examination further stated that “the deceased may have engaged in intercourse prior to the date of the alleged crime, and that the admission of two fingers in her vagina meant that she was habituated to sexual intercourse.”

It was against this background that the Hon’ble Division Bench demurred the patriarchal and sexist suggestion that a woman cannot be believed when she states that she was raped, merely for the reason that she is a sexually active and laid emphasis on the radical change which was brought by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 2013 which inter alia also amended the Evidence Act to insert Section 53A highlighting that “in terms of Section 53A of the Evidence Act, evidence of a victim’s character or her previous sexual experience with any person shall not be relevant to the issue of consent or the quality of consent, in prosecutions of sexual offences.”

To substantiate the arguments against the archaic and outdated “two-finger test” the judgement delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the year 2013 titled Lillu v. State of Haryana, (2013) 14 SCC 643 was quoted wherein the “two-finger test” was held to be violative of the right to privacy, integrity, and dignity of the rape survivors. In that particular case, the victim was a student of 6th standard who was found the age 13 years 9 months and 2 days old on the date of the incident thus the court outrightly held that the question as to whether she had been habitual to sexual activities or not, is immaterial to determine the issue of consent and further for “two-finger test” observed that:

“13. … rape survivors are entitled to legal recourse that does not re-traumatise them or violate their physical or mental integrity and dignity. They are also entitled to medical procedures conducted in a manner that respects their right to consent. Medical procedures should not be carried out in a manner that constitutes cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment and health should be of paramount consideration while dealing with gender-based violence. The State is under an obligation to make such services available to survivors of sexual violence. Proper measures should be taken to ensure their safety and there should be no arbitrary or unlawful interference with their privacy.

14. Thus, in view of the above, undoubtedly, the two-finger test and its interpretation violate the right of rape survivors to privacy, physical and mental integrity and dignity.”

Attention was even drawn to the guidelines directed towards the health providers in cases of sexual violence so issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, which proscribe the application of the “two-finger test” and states as follows:

“Per-Vaginum examination commonly referred to by laypersons as ‘two-finger test’, must not be conducted for establishing rape/sexual violence and the size of the vaginal introitus has no bearing on a case of sexual violence. Per vaginum examination can be done only in adult women when medically indicated.

The status of a hymen is irrelevant because the hymen can be torn due to several reasons such as cycling, riding or masturbation among other things. An intact hymen does not rule out sexual violence, and a torn hymen does not prove previous sexual intercourse. Hymen should therefore be treated like any other part of the genitals while documenting examination findings in cases of sexual violence. Only those that are relevant to the episode of assault (findings such as fresh tears, bleeding, edema etc.) are to be documented.”

Finally, regretting the continued practice of the “two-finger test” the Hon’ble Justices have used the case in hand to set a strong and progressive precedence directing the Union Government as well as the State Governments to do as follows:

“a. Ensure that the guidelines formulated by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare are circulated to all government and private hospitals;

b. Conduct workshops for health providers to communicate the appropriate procedure to be adopted while examining survivors of sexual assault and rape; and

c. Review the curriculum in medical schools to ensure that the “two-finger test” or per vaginum examination is not prescribed as one of the procedures to be adopted while examining survivors of sexual assault and rape.”

Besides, it was held that the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India and its officers were responsible for ensuring the implementation of the directions issued.

08/12/2024 0 comments 26 views

“It Is Patriarchal And Sexist To Suggest That A Woman Can Not Be Believed When She States That She Was Raped, Merely For The Reason That She Is Sexually Active”: Hon’ble Supreme Court

by Guest Author 08/12/2024

written by Guest Author

By Srishti Sarraf

To substantiate the arguments against the archaic and outdated “two-finger test” the judgement delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the year 2013 titled Lillu v. State of Haryana, (2013) 14 SCC 643 was quoted wherein the “two-finger test” was held to be violative of the right to privacy, integrity, and dignity of the rape survivors. In that particular case, the victim was a student of 6th standard who was found the age 13 years 9 months and 2 days old on the date of the incident thus the court outrightly held that the question as to whether she had been habitual to sexual activities or not, is immaterial to determine the issue of consent and further for “two-finger test” observed that:

14. Thus, in view of the above, undoubtedly, the two-finger test and its interpretation violate the right of rape survivors to privacy, physical and mental integrity and dignity.”

“a. Ensure that the guidelines formulated by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare are circulated to all government and private hospitals;

b. Conduct workshops for health providers to communicate the appropriate procedure to be adopted while examining survivors of sexual assault and rape; and

Besides, it was held that the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India and its officers were responsible for ensuring the implementation of the directions issued.

08/12/2024 0 comments 18 views

आधी आबादी की आजादी कहां छुपा दी?

by Rajesh Singh 08/12/2024

written by Rajesh Singh

By राजेश ओ.पी. सिंह

भारत ने हाल ही में अपनी स्वतंत्रता के 75 वर्ष पूर्ण होने पर तिरंगा उत्सव और आजादी का अमृत महोत्सव मनाया है पंरतु आजादी के 75 वर्षों के बाद भी भारत की आधी आबादी सुरक्षित नही है। जब तक महिलाएं असुरक्षित हैं तब तक ऐसे कार्यक्रमों या महोत्सवों का कोई महत्व नहीं रह जाता। हाल ही में राष्ट्रीय अपराध रिकॉर्ड ब्यूरो द्वारा प्रकाशित आंकड़े दर्शा रहे हैं कि उत्तर से दक्षिण, पूर्व से पश्चिम भारत के किसी भी राज्य या शहर या क्षेत्र में महिलाएं सुरक्षित नहीं है। वैसे तो अपने आप को भारत विश्व गुरु और दुनिया का तीसरा सबसे ज्यादा शक्तिशाली राष्ट्र मानता है परंतु यहां महिलाओं पर जुल्मों की सूची दिन प्रतिदिन लंबी होती जा रही है। राष्ट्रीय अपराध रिकॉर्ड ब्यूरो के अनुसार वर्ष 2021 में महिलाओं के साथ होने वाले अत्याचार, हिंसा, कत्ल, बलात्कार आदि घटनाओं की संख्या में पिछले साल के मुकाबले 15.3 फीसदी की बढ़ोतरी हुई है। इस वर्ष 428278 केस दर्ज हुए हैं जबकि वर्ष 2020 में ये संख्या 371503 थी।

यदि हम महिलाओं के खिलाफ हुए अत्याचार की कुल घटनाओं को देखें तो पाएंगे कि केवल 52 फीसदी घटनाओं पर ही आरोप पत्र जारी किए गए हैं, अपहरण के कुल 8.2 फीसदी, साइबर अपराध के 90.80 फीसदी, कत्ल के 95 फीसदी मामलों में ही पुलिस ने दोषियों के खिलाफ आरोप पत्र जारी किए हैं, ये अपने आप में आरोपियों को खुली छूट देने जैसा है, पुलिस का ढील मूल रवैया अपराधियों के लिए ताकत बनता है और इसी कारण से पुरुष अपराध करने से हिचकिचाते नहीं है।

महिलाओं के खिलाफ सबसे ज्यादा हिंसा और अत्याचार उनके पति या पति के परिवार द्वारा किए गए हैं, अर्थात 31.80 फीसदी महिलाएं अपने पति और उसके परिवार के अत्याचार और हिंसा का शिकार हुई हैं। 20.80 फीसदी मामलों में महिलाओं के खिलाफ अपराधिक बल का प्रयोग किया गया है या उनकी लज्जा भंग करने (आउटरेज हर मोडेस्टी) के आशय से हमला किया गया है। 17.60 फीसदी मामलों में अपहरण और 7.40 फीसदी मामलों में महिलाओं के साथ बलात्कार किया गया है।

महिलाओं के खिलाफ अत्याचार और हिंसा के सबसे ज्यादा मामले असम में दर्ज किए गए हैं, इसके बाद ओडिसा, हरियाणा, तेलंगाना और राजस्थान का स्थान है। केंद्र शासित प्रदेशों में दिल्ली महिलाओं के लिए सबसे ज्यादा असुरक्षित जगह है। वहीं बात करें शहरों की तो जयपुर महिलाओं के लिए सबसे खतरनाक और असुरक्षित शहर है। इसके बाद दिल्ली, इंदौर और लखनऊ है। वहीं महिलाओं के लिए सबसे सुरक्षित शहर चेन्नई और कोयंबटूर हैं जो कि तमिलनाडु में हैं।

बलात्कार के मामलों में 6337 मामलों के साथ राजस्थान सबसे शिखर पर है वहीं उत्तर प्रदेश, मध्यप्रदेश और महाराष्ट्र लगभग दो दो हजार से थोड़े अधिक बलात्कार के मामलों के साथ क्रमश: दूसरे तीसरे चौथे स्थान पर है। नाबालिग लड़की के साथ रेप के दर्ज कुल 31677 मामलों में से 1453 मामलों के साथ राजस्थान की हालत बच्चियों के लिए सबसे ज्यादा खस्ता है। गैंगरेप और कत्ल के कुल 284 मामलों में 48 मामलों के साथ उत्तर प्रदेश टॉप पर है, जबकि 46 मामलों के संग असम हैवानियत के दूसरे स्थान पर है।

आधी आबादी पर बढ़ते अत्याचार देश के लिए गहरी चिंता के संकेत दे रहे हैं , आज जब महिलाओं ने हर क्षेत्र में उपलब्धियां दर्ज की हैं और अपनी ताकत का लोहा मनवाया है तब भी वो हर स्थान (घर, सड़क, स्कूल, खेत, यूनिवर्सिटी, बाजार, दफ्तर आदि ) पर असुरक्षित है।

क्या कारण है कि आजादी के 75 वर्षों बाद और देश में एक लिखित संविधान और पुख्ता कानून व्यवस्था के बावजूद भारतीय शासन, प्रशासन और समाज महिलाओं को सुरक्षित माहौल प्रदान करने में असफल रहा है। इसका सबसे मुख्य कारण पितृसत्तात्मक सोच है जो पुरुषों पर हावी है और इस सोच के कारण महिलाओं को दोयम दर्जे की समझा जाता है और पुरुष महिला के ऊपर दास की तरह अपना अधिकार समझते हैं और उसके साथ पशुओं जैसा व्यवहार करते हैं।

इसे रोकने के लिए सर्वप्रथम पुलिस को महिलाओं के प्रति सुगराही बनना पड़ेगा, महिलाओं के प्रति व्यवहार बदलना पड़ेगा और महिलाओं को ये भरोसा दिलवाना पड़ेगा कि उनके खिलाफ हुए अत्याचार या हिंसा को दर्ज किया जाएगा और उसे इंसाफ दिलवाया जायेगा।

जांच पड़ताल में लगने वाले लंबे समय को कम करने की आवश्यकता है, इसके साथ साथ विशेष महिला आदलतें स्थापित करने से भी महिलाओं के खिलाफ अपराधिक मामलों में कमी आयेगी। सबसे महत्वपूर्ण है कि समाज को आगे आना होगा और आंखें व मुंह बंद करने की बजाए ऐसी घटनाओं के खिलाफ बोलना होगा तभी इन घटनाओं पर अंकुश लगाया जा सकेगा।

08/12/2024 0 comments 36 views

Load More Posts

supreme court

Menstrual Leaves Should No Longer Be Up for Debate

The Shrinking Public Spaces For Children: The Fear After The Kolkata Rape Case And The Potential Over-Reliance On Screens

Kolkata Rape And Murder Suo Moto Proceedings: A Call For Enhanced Safety Standards!

Broken, Battered, Taunted, Killed And Misjudged

Champions of Change: Supreme Court’s Verdict on Strengthening Women’s Maintenance Rights

A Sign of Obsoleteness: Marital Rape exception in the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita

Steering the ‘Menstrual Leave Policy’ Debate in a Legal Direction

“It Is Patriarchal And Sexist To Suggest That A Woman Can Not Be Believed When She States That She Was Raped, Merely For The Reason That She Is Sexually Active”: Hon’ble Supreme Court

“It Is Patriarchal And Sexist To Suggest That A Woman Can Not Be Believed When She States That She Was Raped, Merely For The Reason That She Is Sexually Active”: Hon’ble Supreme Court

आधी आबादी की आजादी कहां छुपा दी?

Editor's Pick

Featured

Popular Categories

Are you sure want to unlock this post?

Are you sure want to cancel subscription?