LLM Notes: Human rights of Women in India and its protection along with landmark judgments of Supreme Court

Protection of Women's Human Rights in India

 India has established a comprehensive legal framework aimed at protecting the human rights of women, addressing various forms of discrimination and violence. This framework is rooted in the Constitution and further reinforced by specific laws and policies designed to promote gender equality and safeguard women's rights.

Constitutional Provisions

1. Fundamental Rights

   - Article 14: Guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws for all individuals, including women.

   - Article 15: Prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth, empowering the state to make special provisions for women.

   - Article 16: Ensures equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.

2. Directive Principles of State Policy

   - Article 39(a): Directs the state to ensure that men and women have equal right to an adequate means of livelihood.

   - Article 42: Mandates the state to make provisions for securing just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief.

Key Legislation for Women's Rights

India has enacted several laws to address issues specifically affecting women:

1)  The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: Provides protection to women from domestic violence and allows them to seek legal recourse.

2) The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961: Prohibits the giving or receiving of dowry and penalizes those who engage in dowry-related offenses.

3) The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013: Aims to protect women from sexual harassment at their workplaces.

4)  The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961: Regulates employment of women for certain periods before and after childbirth, ensuring maternity benefits.

Institutional Support

The Indian government has established various bodies to promote and protect women's rights:

- National Commission for Women (NCW): Formed in 1990, it serves as a statutory body to review constitutional and legal safeguards for women and recommend remedial measures.

- State Commissions for Women: These bodies operate at the state level to address women's issues locally.

Challenges in Implementation

Despite a robust legal framework, several challenges hinder the effective implementation of women's rights in India:

1) Cultural Barriers: Deep-rooted societal norms often perpetuate discrimination against women, impacting their access to justice.

2) Awareness Gaps: Many women are unaware of their rights or the legal provisions available to them.

3) Enforcement Issues: Weak enforcement mechanisms and lack of accountability can lead to inadequate protection under existing laws.

Conclusion

While India has made significant strides in enshrining women's rights within its legal framework, ongoing efforts are necessary to bridge the gap between legislation and practice. Empowering women through education, awareness campaigns, and strengthening enforcement mechanisms will be crucial in realizing true gender equality and protecting women's human rights effectively.

Gender Justice and Human Rights: A Focus on Women's Rights in India

 Gender justice is intricately linked to human rights, as both concepts aim to ensure dignity, equality, and freedom for all individuals, regardless of gender. This connection is particularly evident in the context of women's rights in India, where legal frameworks and societal norms play crucial roles.

1. : Gender justice seeks to address inequalities and discrimination based on gender, which are fundamental human rights issues. Human rights provide a broad framework for protecting freedoms and rights, including the right to life, liberty, and security, and protection from discrimination.

2. : International conventions like the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) provide legal frameworks for gender equality. These frameworks emphasize the need for states to eliminate discriminatory laws and practices against women.

3. : Achieving gender justice requires transforming societal norms and structures that perpetuate gender disparities. This includes addressing issues like wage inequality, limited access to education and healthcare, and gender-based violence.

1. : Ensures equality before the law and prohibits discrimination based on gender.

2. : Prohibits discrimination on grounds of sex and empowers the state to make special provisions for women.

3. : Ensures equality of opportunity in public employment and allows reservations for women.

4. : Directs the state to ensure equal pay for men and women for the same work.

5. : Directs the state to provide maternity relief and humane working conditions for women.

1. : Prohibits the giving or taking of dowry, a practice harmful to women.

2. : Provides legal protection to women against domestic violence.

3. : Protects women from sexual harassment at work.

Despite these legal provisions, women in India face challenges such as dowry deaths, female foeticide, and limited access to education and employment. The National Commission for Women plays a crucial role in addressing these issues by advocating for stricter laws and empowering women.

In summary, gender justice and human rights are intertwined, with gender justice focusing on addressing gender inequalities and human rights providing a broader framework for protecting individual freedoms. In India, constitutional provisions and legislative measures aim to promote women's rights, but societal challenges persist, requiring ongoing efforts to achieve true gender equality.

Sexual Abuse as a Serious Offense and Violation of Human Rights: Leading Supreme Court Judgments

Sexual abuse represents one of the most heinous crimes against human dignity. The Supreme Court of India has consistently held that sexual assault violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution of India, including the right to life, dignity, equality, and personal liberty. This compilation presents landmark judgments categorized thematically for easy understanding and memorization.​

Foundational Principle: Rape as Violation of Fundamental Rights

Bodhisattwa Gautam vs. Subhra Chakraborty (1996)

This is the cornerstone judgment establishing that rape violates constitutional rights.

Key Holdings:

• Rape is not merely a crime under the Indian Penal Code—it is a violation of the fundamental right to life and personal dignity under Article 21
• The Supreme Court declared that rape is a "crime against the entire society" and destroys the entire psychology of a woman, pushing her into deep emotional crisis.​

• The Court established its power to award interim compensation to rape victims under Article 32 even during pendency of criminal proceedings​

• The judgment stated: "Rape is the most hated crime. It is a crime against basic human rights."​

Easy Memory Point: "Bodhisattwa = Body's Right" – First case declaring rape as violation of bodily rights under Article 21

Chairman, Railway Board vs. Chandrima Das (2000)

This case extended constitutional protection to non-citizens and connected rape with international human rights instruments.

Facts: A Bangladeshi woman was gang-raped by railway employees at Howrah Railway Station.​

Key Holdings:

• Article 21 protection extends to non-citizens – the fundamental right to life with dignity is available to all persons within Indian territory​

• The Court read Article 21 in consonance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 and the Declaration on Elimination of Violence Against Women​

• Rape itself violates fundamental rights of women including the right to live with human dignity​

• The State was held liable to pay compensation under public law for violation of fundamental rights by its employees​

Easy Memory Point: "Chandrima = Constitution for All" – Article 21 applies to everyone including foreigners

Victim's Testimony and Dignity in Rape Trials

State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh (1996)

This landmark judgment revolutionized how courts evaluate testimony in rape cases.

Key Holdings:

• A rape victim's testimony, if credible and trustworthy, is sufficient for conviction without corroboration.​

• The Court observed: "No self-respecting woman would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour"​

• Courts must not cast aspersions on the victim's character or fixate on minor inconsistencies.​

• The judgment criticized the trial court for describing the victim as a girl with "loose morals" – such characterization was condemned​

• Passive submission due to fear is NOT consent​

Easy Memory Point: "Gurmit = Girl's Word Matters" – Victim's testimony alone can convict

State of Maharashtra vs. Madhukar Narayan Mardikar (1991)

This case established that a woman's character is irrelevant in sexual assault cases.

Facts: A police inspector attempted to sexually exploit a woman named Banubi. The High Court questioned her credibility based on her perceived "character."​

Key Holdings:

• Every woman, irrespective of her sexual history or societal status, has the right to dignity, privacy, and protection​

• The character of a woman is irrelevant in determining whether sexual misconduct occurred​

• Even a woman of "easy virtue" is entitled to bodily integrity and any violation must be treated seriously​

• The Court stated: "No one has the right to invade the physical frame of another"​

Easy Memory Point: "Mardikar = Morality No Bar" – Character evidence inadmissible against victim

Lillu @ Rajesh vs. State of Haryana (2013)

This judgment banned the two-finger test as violative of human rights.

Key Holdings:

• The two-finger test violates the right to privacy, physical and mental integrity, and dignity of rape survivors​

• This test is patriarchal and sexist – a woman cannot be disbelieved simply because she is sexually active​

• The Court referred to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1966 and UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims​

• Past sexual experience is irrelevant to the question of consent​

Easy Memory Point: "Lillu = Liberty from Degrading Tests" – Two-finger test abolished

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO Cases)

Attorney General for India vs. Satish (2021)

This judgment overturned the controversial "skin-to-skin" judgment of Bombay High Court.

Facts: The Bombay High Court had acquitted an accused holding that pressing a child's breast without "skin-to-skin contact" does not amount to sexual assault under POCSO.​

Key Holdings:

• Section 7 of POCSO covers both direct and indirect touch – skin-to-skin contact is NOT required for sexual assault​

• The key element is "sexual intent" not the nature of physical contact​

• The High Court's interpretation would trivialize and legitimize unwelcome behavior against children​

• The POCSO Act must be interpreted to protect children's dignity and autonomy​

Easy Memory Point: "Attorney General = Against Technicalities" – Intent matters, not skin contact

Nipun Saxena vs. Union of India (2018)

This case established comprehensive guidelines for protecting victim's identity.

Key Holdings:

• No person can disclose the name or identity of rape victims in any media (print, electronic, or social)​

• Even if the victim is dead or of unsound mind, identity cannot be disclosed without judicial approval​

• FIRs for offences under Sections 376 and related provisions cannot be made public

• All States/UTs must establish One-Stop Centres in every district for rape victims​

• Disclosure of rape victim's identity is a criminal offence under Section 228A IPC​

Easy Memory Point: "Nipun = No Publishing Names" – Victim identity must be protected

Alakh Alok Srivastava vs. Union of India (2018)

Guidelines for speedy trial under POCSO Act.

Key Holdings:

• POCSO trials must be completed within one year from cognizance​

• Special Courts must be constituted with trained presiding officers

• Child-friendly environment must be created in courts

• Three-judge committee to monitor POCSO cases in each High Court

• Special Task Force by DGP for proper investigation​

Easy Memory Point: "Alakh Alok = Always Complete within Year" – One-year timeline for POCSO trials

---

Marital Rape and Child Marriage

Independent Thought vs. Union of India (2017)

This historic judgment partially recognized marital rape by striking down Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC.

Facts: The exception allowed sexual intercourse with a wife aged 15-18 years as legal.

• Sexual intercourse with a minor wife (below 18 years) is rape, regardless of marital status.​

• Exception 2 was held arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 15, and 21​

• Child marriage violates human rights of the child and is detrimental to her overall welfare​

• The Court applied harmonious construction to read down the exception​

Easy Memory Point: "Independent Thought = In Marriage Too, 18 is the Line" – No exception for child brides

Sexual Harassment at Workplace

Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan (1997)

The foundation case for laws against sexual harassment at workplace.

Background: Bhanwari Devi, a social worker, was gang-raped for preventing child marriage. The Rajasthan High Court acquitted the accused.​

Key Holdings:

• Sexual harassment violates Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution​

• The Court issued the Vishaka Guidelines which remained in force until the 2013 Act:

  • Definition of sexual harassment (physical contact, demand for favors, sexually colored remarks, pornography, unwelcome conduct)​

  • Duty of employer to prevent sexual harassment

  • Complaints mechanism through Complaints Committee

• International Conventions are significant for interpretation of constitutional guarantees​

Easy Memory Point: "Vishaka = Vital Shield Against Harassment" – Guidelines for workplace safety

Bail Conditions and Gender Sensitization

Aparna Bhat vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021)

This judgment addressed patriarchal bail conditions in sexual assault cases.

Facts: The Madhya Pradesh High Court granted bail on condition that the accused visit the victim's house and get her to tie rakhi on him.​

Key Holdings:

• Courts must not impose arbitrary conditions that expose survivors to secondary trauma​

• No patriarchal or stereotypical reasoning should be used in bail orders​

• Courts should not encourage marriage between accused and victim as compromise​

• Gender sensitization curriculum should be included in law schools and judicial training​

• The verdict must not reflect bias or stereotype of the judge​

Easy Memory Point: "Aparna = Against Patriarchal Attitudes" – No rakhi, no compromise, no stereotypes

---

The Nirbhaya Case: Rarest of Rare

Mukesh vs. State of NCT Delhi (2017)

The most significant case on gang rape and death penalty.

Facts: On December 16, 2012, a 23-year-old paramedic student was brutally gang-raped and murdered in a moving bus in Delhi.​

Key Holdings:

• The case falls within "rarest of rare" category warranting death penalty​

• The brutality showed complete disregard for human dignity​

• DNA evidence, blood traces, and witness testimonies were sufficient for conviction​

• The Court emphasized the barbaric and heinous nature of the crime​

• Death penalty upheld for four convicts as a deterrent​

Aftermath:

• Led to Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013

• Two-finger test abolished

• Stricter punishments for rape

• Death penalty for repeat offenders and gang rape causing death​

Easy Memory Point: "Mukesh/Nirbhaya = Most Extreme Punishment" – Rarest of rare doctrine applied

Mathura Case: The Catalyst for Reform

Tukaram vs. State of Maharashtra (1979)

Though criticized, this case ultimately catalyzed major rape law reforms.

Facts: Mathura, a young tribal girl (14-16 years), was raped by two policemen inside a police station. The Supreme Court acquitted the accused.​

Problematic Reasoning:

• The Court held that absence of injury marks meant no resistance, hence consent​

• The Court stated since she "raised no alarm," she consented​

• The Court observed she was "habituated to sexual intercourse"​

Impact:

• Led to massive protests and women's rights movements

• Resulted in Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1983:

  • Custodial rape made a separate offense with higher punishment

  • Burden of proof shifted to accused in custodial rape cases

  • In camera trials mandated

​Easy Memory Point: "Tukaram = Tremendous Reform" – Bad law led to good amendments

Summary Table for Quick Revision

Case Name	Year	Key Principle	Memory Hook
Bodhisattwa Gautam	1996	Rape violates Article 21	"Body's Right"​
Chandrima Das	2000	Article 21 applies to foreigners	"Constitution for All"​
Gurmit Singh	1996	Victim testimony sufficient	"Girl's Word Matters"​
Mardikar	1991	Character evidence inadmissible	"Morality No Bar"​
Lillu	2013	Two-finger test banned	"Liberty from Tests"​
Vishaka	1997	Workplace harassment guidelines	"Vital Shield"​
Independent Thought	2017	Marital rape with minor = rape	"18 is the Line"​
Nipun Saxena	2018	Victim identity protection	"No Publishing Names"​
Attorney General vs Satish	2021	No skin-to-skin required	"Against Technicalities"​
Aparna Bhat	2021	No patriarchal bail conditions	"Against Patriarchy"​
Mukesh (Nirbhaya)	2017	Rarest of rare doctrine	"Most Extreme"​
Tukaram (Mathura)	1979	Led to 1983 amendments	"Bad to Good Law"​

Key Constitutional Articles to Remember

• Article 14: Right to Equality – No discrimination against victims

• Article 15: Prohibition of Discrimination – Gender justice

• Article 19(1)(g): Right to Practice Profession – Safe workplace (Vishaka)

• Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty – Core article for all sexual assault cases

• Article 32: Right to Constitutional Remedies – Interim compensation possible

Exam Tips for Memorization

Chronological Flow:

1. 1979 – Mathura Case (catalyst for reform)

2. 1991 – Mardikar (character irrelevant)

3. 1996 – Bodhisattwa Gautam (rape = Article 21 violation) + Gurmit Singh (victim testimony)

4. 1997 – Vishaka (workplace guidelines)

5. 2000 – Chandrima Das (foreigners protected)

6. 2013 – Lillu (two-finger test banned)

7. 2017 – Independent Thought (minor wife) + Nirbhaya (death penalty)

8. 2018 – Nipun Saxena (identity protection)

9. 2021 – Attorney General vs Satish (no skin-to-skin) + Aparna Bhat (no rakhi condition)

Three Pillars to Remember:

1. Dignity – Every case affirms victim's right to dignity

2. Article 21 – All cases connect to fundamental right to life

3. International Law – Courts refer to CEDAW, ICCPR, UDHR consistently

Print Page