CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND WOMEN’S RIGHTS:

The constitution’s main goal is to eliminate gender based discrimination.The principle of gender
equality is enshrined in the Indian Constitution in its Preamble, Fundamental Rights, Fundamental
Duties and Directive Principles. The Constitution not only grants equality to women, but also
empowers the State to adopt measures of positive discrimination in favour of women. Within the
framework of a democratic polity, our laws, development policies, Plans and programmes have aimed
at women’s advancement in different spheres. India has also ratified various international conventions
and human rights instruments committing to secure equal rights of women. The most important
among them is the ratification of the Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
Against Women (CEDAW) in 1993.

The commitment to gender equality is well entrenched at the highest policy making level in the
Constitution of India. Women’s rights have been emphasised in our constitution in our
Preamble,Fundamental rights,Fundamental Duties and Directive Principles and they’re briefly
mentioned below.
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS:
Right to equality is ensured in Article 14 of our Constitution.Article 15(1) specifically provides for
affirmative and positive action in favour of women by empowering the state to make special
provisions for them.Article 15(3) talks about special provisions made by the State in favour of women
and children.article 16 of the Constitution provides for equality of opportunity to all, in matters
relating to public employment or appointment to any office and this provision specifically forbids
discrimination inter-alia on the ground of sex.

CASES:
• C.B.MUTHUMMA VS UNION OF INDIA
The petitioner C.B.Muthamma was a senior member of the Indian Foreign Service.She brought a
petition against the Government in the Supreme Court on the grounds that she has been overlooked
for promotion because she was a woman and because some rules governing the employment of
women in the Service are discriminatory in nature and therefore contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution.
Law:
• Article 14 (equality before the law)
• Article 16 (equality of opportunity in matters of public employment)
The petitioner argued that she had been denied promotion to Grade I of the Indian Foreign Service
on the grounds that:
1. there was a long standing practice of hostile discrimination against women
2. she had to undertake on joining the foreign service that if she got married she
would resign from her post
3. she had to face the consequences of being a woman and thus suffered
discrimination
4. the members of the appointment committee were basically prejudiced as a
group
She also submitted that the rules that no married woman has the automatic right to be appointed to
the Service and that a woman employee must get written permission to marry and may be forced to
resign if the Government decides that her marital commitments will hamper her work were
unconstitutional. Furthermore she set out that during the period between her first and second
evaluations, some officers junior to her had been promoted over her, adversely affecting her career.
The case was brought for appeal in front of a three-judge bench headed by Justice.V.R.Krishna Iyer.
The three judges presented unanimous findings. J.k.krishna iyer commented that
“... sex prejudice against the Indian womanhood pervades the service rules even a third of a century
after Freedom. There is some basis for the charge of bias in the rules and this makes the ominous
indifference of the executive to bring about the banishment of discrimination in the heritage of service
rules. If high officials lose hopes of equal justice under the rules, the legal lot of the little Indian,
already priced out of the expensive judicial market, is best left to guess.”1The judgment of
Muthamma's case described the Foreign Service as ‘misogynist.’ The Supreme Court Judgement
ensured that henceforth it was not mandatory for women officers in the IFS to seek government
permission for getting married.
• AIR INDIA VS NARGESH MEERZA
This case came before the three judge bench of J.Faizal Ali,J.Syed Murtaza & J.A.Vardarajan.
The case imposed a challenge on Regulations 46 and 47 of the Air India Employees Service
Regulations. With the challenge being posited on the grounds that the aforesaid regulation created a
substantial degree of disparity between male (referred to as Air Flight Pursers) and female (Air
Hostesses) (and within the Air Hostesses different operational standards dependent on whether one
is working for Air India International on the International circuit or Indian Airlines on the domestic
circuit) on multitude of grounds such as promotional avenues, differential retirement ages, conditions
pertaining to termination of the Air hostesses services in cases of pregnancy or marriage (retirement

1
C.b.Muthamma vs Union of India
age for them was 35 years as opposed to 58 for their “male counterparts” – according to Regulation
46). Furthermore, a more prosaic question was regarding the discretionary powers of the Managing
Director who under Regulation 47 could increase the age of retirement as per his own behest. An
aspect which is contested by the petitioners as being arbitrary.The said matter was brought under the
dais of a writ petition before the Supreme Court. With previous iterations of the case having
previously been presented before the National Industrial Tribunals ( one being the Khosla Tribunal
(1965) while the other being the Mahesh Tribunal( 1972) ). The issues in this case was that whether
Regulation 46&47 are violative of Articles 14,15,16 of our Constitution and thus becoming ultra vires
and also whether discretionary powers under Regulation 47 can be deemed as excessive
delegation.The court held the clauses regarding retirement and pregnancy as unconstitutional and thus
ordered for them to be struck down. Furthermore, Regulation 47 experienced a similar fate, for it was
found that the said regulation suffered from excessive delegation of powers without any reasonable
guidelines to police the same.But the court also asserted that the concerned matter is not violative of
Article 14 on the grounds of reasonable and intelligible differentia.The court also rejected the
violation of Article 16 with the basis that the court never prohibits the state from discriminating on
the grounds of sex and other considerations.The sexist nature of the judgment is brought into full
focus on multiple occasions. For instance being when the court rejects the one child basis for
retirement for air hostess and instead advocates for an amendment which introduces the option of
retirement upon the birth of the third child.
• YUSUF ABDUL AZIZ VS STATE OF BOMBAY
The case came before a five judge bench. The issue in this case was whether section 497 of the Indian
Penal Code contravenes with article 14 & 15 of the Constitution.As soon as the complaint was filed
he applied to the High Court of Bombay to determine the constitutional question mentioned under
article 228 of the Constitution. The High Court decided against him but granted him a certificate
under articles 132 (1) and 134 (1) (c).Article 14 is general and must be read with the other provisions
which set out the ambit of fundamental rights. Sex is a sound classification and although there can be
no discriminate in general on that ground, the Constitution itself provides for special provisions in
the case of women and children. The two articles read together validated the impugned clause in
section 497 of the Indian Penal Code.The appellant was not a citizen of India. It was argued that he
could not invoke articles 14 and 15 for that reason. The appeal was dismissed.
• VISHAKA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Vishakha and others v State of Rajasthan was a 1997 Indian Supreme Court case where Vishakha and
other women groups filed Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against State of Rajasthan and Union of
India to enforce the fundamental rights of working women under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the
Constitution of India. The petition was filed after Bhanwari Devi, a social worker in Rajasthan was
brutally gang raped for stopping a child marriage.The petition, resulted in what are popularly known
as the Vishaka Guidelines. The judgment of August 1997 given by a bench of J. S. Verma (then
C.J.I)., Sujata Manohar and B. N. Kirpal, provided the basic definitions of sexual harassment at the
workplace and provided guidelines to deal with it. It is seen as a significant legal victory for women's
groups in India.

• LATA SINGH VS STATE OF U.P

It was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court provided unwavering support of a woman’s right
to choice. The petitioner, Lata Singh, was a major when she left her family’s home to marry a man
outside of her caste. This set off a chain of abuses, as her three brothers were against the relationship.
Singh’s brothers went to the paternal home of Singh’s husband and harassed and beat up his family
members, destroyed their crops, and took forcible possession of their shop. The brothers proceeded
to lodge a false police report alleging Singh had been abducted, for which three of Singh’s in-laws
were arrested. Singh filed this successful petition to have their charges dropped. The judge further
directed that criminal proceedings should commence against Singh’s brothers. The court also directed
the police to take strict actions against such wrong-doers.
CONCLUSION:
Constitution of India has provided for many special and needed provisions for women and children.
It is in the implementation that the problem lies. Even the learned judges give sexist judgements from
time to time without even knowing because they feel that it is the right judgement for that time.
Women’s issues are a multi faceted problem,it has to be handled as delicately as possible. So the
implementation of the provisions in the Constitution must happen from the ground level.This
responsibility has to be shared by the State, community organisations, legislators who frame the laws
and the judiciary which interprets the Constitution and other laws.