Gender Equality - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court’s Big Equality Ruling :Army Can’t Restrict Women’s Numbers After Allowing Them In

12Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court’s Big Equality Ruling :Army Can’t Restrict Women’s Numbers After Allowing Them In

This Supreme Court judgment holds that once the Central Government permits women's induction into the JAG branch via notification under Section 12 of the Army Act, 1950, it cannot subsequently impose gender-based restrictions through administrative policies. Any such limitation violates Article 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution, as it constitutes indirect discrimination and exceeds the permissible scope of exceptions under Article 33. Facts Of The Case: The petitioners, two female candidates who secured the 4th and 5th ranks in the women's merit list for the Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch's 31st Course, challenged a recruitment notification dated 18th January 2023. The notification prescribed six vacancies for male candidates and only three for female candidates. Despite the petiti...

Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Ends Gender Bias Tribal Women Now Have Equal Rights to Ancestral Property!

The Supreme Court ruled that in the absence of any established custom or law governing inheritance for Scheduled Tribes, the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience under Section 6 of the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875 must apply. The Court held that denying tribal women equal inheritance rights violates Article 14 (right to equality) of the Constitution, as discrimination based on gender lacks a rational nexus. The judgment overruled the lower courts’ dismissal of the claim, affirming that legal heirs of tribal women are entitled to an equal share in ancestral property unless a contrary custom is proven. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a dispute over the inheritance rights of a tribal woman, Dhaiya, belonging to the Gond Scheduled Tribe in Chhattisgarh. The appellants,...

Big Relief for Mothers: Supreme Court Backs Woman’s Right to Benefit After Remarriage

The Supreme Court ruled that K. Umadevi is entitled to maternity leave under FR 101(a), setting aside the High Court Division Bench's decision. The Court emphasized a purposive and liberal interpretation of maternity benefit provisions, aligning with reproductive rights under Article 21 of the Constitution and international conventions, irrespective of prior children not in the mother's custody or born from a previous marriage. Facts Of The Case: K. Umadevi, the appellant, married A. Suresh in 2006, having two children from this wedlock in 2007 and 2011. Their marriage was dissolved in 2017, and the children remained in the custody of her former husband. In December 2012, she joined government service as an English Teacher in Tamil Nadu. On September 12, 2018, the appellant remarried M...