1.
Vishaka Vs State of Rajasthan
Bhanwari Devi, a social worker from Rajasthan, was brutally gang-raped by five men for preventing a
child marriage. Determined to seek justice, she decided to go to court. In a shocking decision, the
trial court acquitted all five accused. Vishaka, a Group for Women’s Education and Research, took up
the cause of Bhanwari Devi. It joined forces with four other women’s organisations, and filed a
petition before the Supreme Court of India on the issue of sexual harassment at the workplace.
On August 13, 1997, the Supreme Court commissioned the Vishaka guidelines that defined sexual
harassment and put the onus on the employers to provide a safe working environment for women.
2. Mary Roy Vs State of Kerala
Women from the Syrian Christian community in Kerala were prevented from inheriting property due
to patriarchal traditions. This decree was challenged by Mary Roy, a woman's right activist and
educator.
After the demise of her father, she filed a case against her elder brother when she was denied equal
share in the family's inheritance. Though the plea was rejected by the lower court, the Kerala High
Court overruled the previous judgment.
In 1986, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment that granted Syrian Christian women the
right to seek an equal share in their father's property.
3. Lata Singh Vs State of Uttar Pradesh
Lata Singh was an adult when she left her family home to be joined in matrimony with a man from a
lower caste. Her brothers, who were unhappy with the alliance, filed a missing person report, and
alleged Lata had been abducted. This resulted in the arrest of three people from her husband's
family.
In order to get the charges dropped, Lata Singh filed a petition which resulted in the landmark
judgment by the Supreme Court that allowed an adult woman the right to marry or live with anyone
of her choice.
The court further ordered that the police initiate criminal action against people who commit
violence against those who decide on inter-religious or inter-caste marriages.
4. Roxann Sharma Vs Arun Sharma
Roxann was involved in a bitter child custody battle with her estranged husband. A court in Goa
granted her interim custody of their child, but Arun Sharma whisked their son away and refused to
let Roxann meet the child.
She filed a case against him, which led to the landmark judgment pronounced by the apex court
regarding children caught in a legal battle between parents.
The Supreme Court ruled that when estranged parents are involved in a legal tussle over the custody
of a child who is under the age of five years, the custody of the child will remain with the mother.
5. Tamil Nadu Vs Suhas Katti
This case led to the first conviction under the Information Technology Act, 2000. The victim was
being harassed by the accused, Suhas Katti, when she refused to marry him.
He would send defamatory and obscene messages to her online in a Yahoo message group. To add
to her agony, she began to receive phone calls from unknown people soliciting sex work.
The victim filed a complaint in February 2004, and within seven months the accused was convicted.
In an age of merciless trolls and other forms of online harassment, this judgment acts as a tool that
woman can use to safeguard their dignity.
6. Laxmi Vs Union Of India
In 2006, Laxmi, an acid attack victim, filed a petition seeking measures to regulate the sale of acid
and provide adequate compensation to the victim. Taking cognizance of the number of cases
relating to acid attacks against women on the rise, the Supreme Court imposed stringent regulations
on the sale of acid in 2013.
The ruling banned over the counter sale of acid. Dealers can sell the acid only if the buyer provides a
valid identity proof and states the need for the purchase. It is mandatory for the dealer to submit
the details of the sale within three days to the police. It also made it illegal to sell acid to a person
below 18 years.
7. Centre for enquiry into Health and Allied themes (CEHAT) Vs Union of India
With the advent of pre-natal diagnostic techniques that could determine the sex of a fetus, the
growing trend of aborting female fetuses was observed. In a bid to curtail female feticide, the
government of India issued the PNDT Act in 1996.
The provisions of the PNDT Act, however, were not being effectively implemented by the state and
central government.
The Centre for Enquiry into Health and Allied themes filed a petition which led to the Supreme court
directing the Central and State governments to enact the provisions of the act immediately, and
banned all advertisements relating to pre-natal sex determination techniques.
Mathura case
About Mathura case, which led to the amendment of Evidence Act in 1983 (114-A).This allowed the
woman’s word to be trusted for her nonconsent. There has been no monitoring of judgments if the
reformed law is followed to the word. She was a sixteen-year-old girl was raped by two policemen
on the compound of Desai Ganj Police Station in Chandrapur. Her relatives sat outside to file a police
report against a theft, In this case, both the High Court and later Supreme Court acquitted the
policemen on the ground that Mathura was habitual of sex and did not go for help.
In 1983 SC rulings clarified “Even if a rape victim has been promiscuous in the past, she has the right
to refuse to submit herself for a sexual intercourse to anyone and everyone because she is not an
object”. In 1983 The first amendment to criminal law published. when the Evidence Act was changed
to state that if a rape victim says she did not consent to sexual intercourse, the courts will presume
so. ‘Custodial Rape’ was also introduced in the IPC .
The Railway Board Chairman, v. Chandrima Das
A Bangladesh woman was raped by the railway security men, the Supreme Court observed ,
of groundWhere public functionaries are involved and the matter relates to the violation of
fundamental rights or the enforcement of public duties. The remedy would be avoidable under
public law. when it was not a mere violation of any ordinary right. The violation of fundamental
rights was involved- as the petitioner was a victim of rape. Which a violation of fundamental right of
every person guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court also held that the
relief can be granted to the victim for based on two reasons, firstly on of groundof domestic
jurisprudence of the Constitutional provisions. Secondly, human rights Jurisprudence based on the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
State of Maharashtra V. Madhukar N. Mardikar
Madhukar N. Mardikar stated as that “the unchastity of a woman does not make her open to any
and every person to violate her person as and when he wishes, she is entitled to protect her person
if there is an attempt to violate her person against her wish. Therefore merely because she is of easy
virtue.Her evidence cannot be thrown overboard”.
Suo Motto v. State of Rajasthan
Suo Motto known as German Lady rape case.Honorable Mr. Justice N.N. Mathur, who wrote the
judgment, took Suo Motto cognizance of a rape case of a foreign tourist in Rajasthan May 2005.
which had hit the headlines of State and national newspapers. In this rape case, the court says the
criminal justice system needs to be addressed from the point of view of systemic victim support
service. There is iportant to promote active role of police as well as trial courts.
Birju Ram v. State of Rajasthan
Relating to abduction and rape.The same court headed by Honorable Justice Mathur, emphasized on
prevention of crime more than prosecutory culture of the administration. The court further directed
the government to take strict action against persons inside and outside the administration who
attempt to patronize and protect the accused or in any manner interfere with the natural flow of
due course of justice
State Of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh & Ors
The expression that the inquiry into and trial of rape ‘shall be conducted in camera’ as occurring in
sub- section (2) of Section 327 Cr. P.C. is not only significant but very important. It casts a duty on
the Court to conduct the trial of rape cases etc. invariably “in camera”. The Courts are obliged to act
in furtherance of the intention expressed by the Legislature and not to ignore its mandate and must
invariably take recourse to the provisions of Section 327 (2) and (3) Cr. P.C. and hold the trial of rape
cases in camera.
Sakshi v. Union Of India (UOI) And Ors
Also it would be essential to enforce the guidelines imposed in holding trial of child sex abuse or
rape:Some arrangements may be made where the victim or do not see the body or face of the
accused, in cross-examination on behalf of the accused: the victim of child abuse or rape, while
giving testimony in court should be allowed sufficient breaks as and when required: they relate
directly to the incident should be given in writing to the Presiding Officer of the Court who may put
them to the victim or witnesses in a language which is clear and which is clear and proper question
not embarrassing.
