5 times Indian courts stood up for women rights

There is indeed some light at the end of the tunnel. Photo: Shutterstock/IndiaPicture

It is a known fact that the condition of women in India is deplorable. Be it in terms of women's rights or the way society treats us--life as a woman is not easy.

While our society remains oblivious to our rights, Indian judiciary has tried time and again to uphold the dignity of women.

We are not denying some rulings are clearly sexist. For instance, the Bombay High Court recently ruled that educated girls can't cry rape if ditched by boyfriend. And in another case granted bail to a man accused of raping his adoptive daughter, as she was "used to dirty things". However, there have been landmark rulings that made us feel that all maybe not lost.

Also read: Dear Bombay HC, even if the girl was 'used to dirty things' her consent still matters

Here are five times when the Indian courts made us realize that there is light at the end of the tunnel.

The Landmark Judgement On Sexual Harassment of Women At Workplace
The judgement, which was passed in 1997, was an offshoot of a rape case involving a social worker in Rajasthan. The rape survivor did not get justice and the rapists were allowed to go free, but it enraged a women's rights group called Vishaka.

The group filed a public interest litigation in the Supreme Court of India to enforce fundamental rights for working women, under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. This gave birth to the Vishaka Guidelines that requires employers to form committees to hear complaints from victims of harassment in the workplace.

When Supreme Court of India brought Live-in Relationships Under the Domestic Violence Act
In a landmark judgement, a Supreme Court bench headed by Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan framed guidelines to bring live-in relationship under the Domestic Violence Act. The SC also said that a `relationship in the nature of marriage' is akin to a common law marriage.

The bench even framed guidelines for determining live-in relations, which included pooling of financial and domestic arrangements, entrusting the responsibility, sexual relationship, and bearing children.

When Bombay High Court said Drunk Woman's Consent For Sex Is Not Valid
The Bombay High Court recently ruled that "a woman, when intoxicated, is incapable of giving a free and conscious consent to a sexual relationship." The court also said in such a circumstance, even if the woman consents to a sexual relationship, it will not be considered valid or as an "excuse for committing rape."

The court observed that if a woman says 'no' to intercourse even once, it should signify that she is not interested. It also added that consent should be 'free and unambiguous' for the incident to not be called as rape.

Also read:  Mumbai HC's ruling on sex under the influence of alcohol will help in curbing rapes big time

When Delhi High Court said Woman Can Be the 'Karta' Of A Family
In its landmark verdict in 2016, Delhi High Court ruled that the eldest female member of a family can be its "karta" or head of the family.

According to Hindu customs and ancient texts, "karta" denotes managership of a joint family and is traditionally inherited by men. The head  of the family has full authority to manage property, rituals, or other crucial affairs of the family; taking decisions on sale and purchase of family assets, mutation of property etc.

The court said: "If a male member of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), by virtue of his being the first born eldest, can be a karta, so can a female member. The court finds no restriction in law preventing the eldest female coparcener of an HUF, from being its karta."

When the Supreme Court Allowed Unwed Mothers To Be Sole Guardian of Their Children
In 2015, the SC in a landmark judgement said that unwed mothers can be sole legal guardian, and don't have to reveal father's identity. The apex court also said that women are increasingly choosing to raise their children alone, and there was no need to thrust an uncaring father on a child.

Justice Vikramjit Sen, who authored the judgement, observed that a man who has chosen to forsake his duties and responsibilities is not necessary component for the well-being of the child. He said: "In today's society, where women are increasingly choosing to raise their children alone, we see no purpose in imposing an unwilling and unconcerned father on an otherwise viable family nucleus."

We definitely need more rulings like these to make sure India remains a safe country for women. We are hoping this just the beginning.