Landmark Judgement on Women Issues
| Citation | Brief |
| Delhi Domestic Working Women’s forum vs Union Of India and Ors.
1995 SCC (1) 14. |
The Supreme Court pointed out the defects of the existing system while dealing with rape victims, issuing 8 broad parameters while assisting victims of rape. |
| Budhadev Karmaskar vs State Of West Bengal.
February 14, 2011. |
What if she is a prostitute, she is a woman and human being too. The Supreme Court directed the Central and the State Governments to prepare schemes for giving technical/vocational training to sex workers and sexually abused women in all cities in India. |
| Lillu @ Rajesh & Anr vs State Of Haryana.
[(2013)14 SCC 643]. |
The two finger test and its interpretation violates the rights of rape survivors to privacy, physical and mental integrity and dignity. Thus, this test, even if the report is affirmative, cannot ipso facto, give rise to presumption of consent. |
| Laxmi vs Union of India.
(2014) 4 SCC 427. |
Sale of acid is completely prohibited unless the seller maintains a log/ register recording the sale of acid which will contain the details of the person(s) to whom acid(s) is/are sold and the quantity sold.
Direct that the acid attack victims shall be paid compensation of at least Rs. 3 lakhs by the concerned State Government/Union Territory as after care and rehabilitation costs. |
| ABC vs The State (NCT of Delhi)
July 06, 2015. |
Unwed mothers need not name the child’s father. |
| Dhannulal & Ors. vs Ganeshram & Ors.
Civil Appeal No.3410 of 2007 |
If you are living under the same roof, you are married under law. |
| Mukesh & Anr vs State for NCT of Delhi & Ors. (Death for Nirbhaya convicts).
Criminal Appeal Nos. 607 – 608 Of 2017. |
Supreme Court of India upheld the death penalty of convicts in Nirbhaya rape and death case. |
| The Director, Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy vs State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.
W.P.No. 36807 of 2006, order of the Madras High Court dated 31.12. 2006. |
In contravention of the ITPA, 1986 no efforts had been made to facilitate the reintegration and rehabilitation of the women who were detained without any inquiry.
With a view to promote the reintegration and rehabilitation of sexually abused children or trafficked children, the High Court issued directions to the police, Magistrates, Juvenile Justice Boards, Legal Services Authority, and State Government. |
| Vishal Jeet vs Union Of India & Ors.
1990 AIR 1412. |
The malady of prostitution is not only a social but also a socio economic problem and, therefore, the measures to be taken in that regard should be more preventive rather than punitive. |
| Vishaka & Ors vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(1997) 6 SCC 241. |
Issued guidelines to prevent sexual harassment against women in work places. All complaints of sexual harassment of any woman employee would be directed to the sexual harassment committee. This verdict was superseded by the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. |
| Vaddeboyina Tulasamma vs Vaddeboyina Shesha Reddi,
1977 SCR (3) 261. |
The Supreme Court in this case highlighted the Hindu female’s right to maintenance as a tangible right. |
| Mrs. Mary Roy etc. vs State Of Kerala & Ors,
1986 AIR SC 1011. |
The Supreme Court in this case held that Christian women are entitled to have an equal share in their father’s property. |
| Shayara Bano vs Union of India & others
Writ Petition (C) No. 118 of 2016 |
In a landmark decision, Supreme Court of India declared the practice of Triple Talaq as unconstitutional by a 3:2 majority. |
| D. Velusamy vs D. Patchaiammal
(2010) 10 SCC 469. |
The Supreme Court in this case held that Live-in relationships will also come under Domestic Violence Act 2005. It is held that ‘not all live in relationships will amount to a relationship in the nature of marriage to get the benefit of the Act of 2005 |
| Rajesh Sharma & Ors. Vs State of U.P.
Criminal Appeal No. 1265 Of 2017 |
The Supreme Court issued new set of directions to prevent the misuse of Section 498A of Indian Penal Code. |
| Pawan Kumar vs State of H.P.
Criminal Appeal No. 775 OF 2017 |
“No one can compel a woman to love. She has the absolute right to reject”.
She has an individual choice which is legally recognized and socially respected. |
Others important judgments
| Citation | Brief |
| Lalita Kumari vs Govt. of U.P. & Ors.
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 68 of 2008.PDF |
Supreme Court held that:
i. Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses that if a cognizable offence is committed. ii. If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted to ascertain whether it is a cognizable offence. |
| Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar & Anr.
Dated on 2 July, 2014. |
Mandatory registration of FIR in cases of dowry harassment. |
| Chand Devi Daga & Ors. vs Manju K. Humatani & Ors.
Criminal Appeal No. 1860 of 2017 |
The Supreme Court upheld a High Court Judgment that allowed legal heirs of the complainant to prosecute the petition before the High Court. |