Women Empowerment (Article 14)

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 affirms the ideal of equal rights of men and women. The U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, 1979 observes that discrimination against women violates the principles of equality of rights and respect for human dignity. Similarly, social justice is the keystone of the Indian Constitution. One facet of it is gender justice. The principle of gender equality is enshrined in the Indian Constitution in its Preamble, Fundamental Rights, Fundamental Duties, and Directive Principles. In this article, we shall study Constitutional provisions for women empowerment.

Constitutional Provisions:

The Constitution of India not only grants equality to women but also empowers the State to adopt measures of positive discrimination in favour of women for neutralizing the cumulative socio-economic, education, and political disadvantages faced by them. Fundamental Rights, among others, ensure equality before the law and equal protection of the law; prohibits discrimination against any citizen on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth, and guarantee equality of opportunity to all citizens in matters relating to employment. The meaning and content of the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution of India are of sufficient amplitude to encompass all the facets of gender equality including prevention of sexual harassment or abuse. Gender equality includes protection from sexual harassment, the right to work with dignity, and the right to education which are universally recognized basic human rights. Important Constitutional Provisions are Articles 14, 15, 16, 21, 21A, 23, 24, 38, 39, 42, 44, and 55(e). In this article, we shall study Article 14 of the Constitution of India and its interpretation with respect to women empowerment.

Right to Equality:

Right to Equality means that all citizens enjoy equal privileges and opportunities. It protects the citizens against any discrimination by the State on the basis of religion, caste, race, sex, or place of birth. Right to Equality includes five types of equalities.

1. Equality before law (Article 14)
2. Prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth (Article 15)
3. Equality of opportunities in matters of public employment (Article 16)
4. Abolition of Untouchability (Article 17)
5. Abolition of titles (Article 18)

Equality before law (Article 14):

Article 14 reads as “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth”. Equal protection of law means that law will apply equally to equally-placed persons while equality before the law means the law is equal among equal and prohibits discrimination between equally placed persons. This provision creates equal protection of law and equality before the law for women i.e. they will not be discriminated against on the basis of gender. The Supreme Court of India has responded to issues of gender justice in a positive manner. Some of the cases that significantly advance the cause and dignity of women are discussed below:

In Air India v. Nergesh Meerza AIR 1981 SC 1829 case, where Regulations 46 and 47 of the Air India Employees Service Regulations had discriminatory provisions for male (Flight Pursers) and female (Air Hostesses). These provisions and discretionary powers of the Managing Director in this regard were challenged as a violation of Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution. The apex court after hearing arguments from both the parties ruled that the clauses regarding retirement and pregnancy are unconstitutional and held that these provisions are arbitrary, selfish, and cruel, and are in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Court ordered to be struck down the provisions with immediate effect. Similarly, the apex court termed the discretionary powers of the Managing Director as the excessive delegation of powers without any reasonable guidelines to police the same.

In Charu Khurana vs. Union of India, 2015 1 SCC 192 case, where the petitioner, a Hollywood make-up artist, and hairdresser submitted an application to R-5 association to issue her a membership card to work there as a make-up artist and hairdresser. The association refused the application submitted by the petitioner as they were not giving membership to the female worker as a make-up artist and hairdresser. The court held that there can be no discrimination solely on the basis of gender. Equality cannot be achieved in any field if women will not be given equal opportunities. It was also stated that the registrar of the Trade Union should not allow or see that no other trade union should make any such provision which is inconsistent with the constitutional provisions. This was the writ petition was filed by the respondent under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

In C.B. Muthamma v. Union of India, AIR 1979 SC 1868 case, the court considered the provision in IFS rules which stipulated that a woman would have to resign if she gets married after joining the foreign service as clearly against ‘gender justice’ (violation of Articles 14 and 15) and in defiance of Article 16 of the Constitution.

In Mohd. Ahmed Khan vs Shah Bano Begum, AIR 1985 SC 945 case, the Court held that divorced Muslim women notwithstanding the personal law, has right of miantenance under Section 125 of CrPC.

In Thota Sesharathamma And Anr vs Thota Manikyamma (Dead), 1991 SCR (3) 717 case, the Supreme Court permanently eliminated the economic disparity between the male and female and put a seal of finality on a Hindu female’s right to property.

In Bombay Labour Union v. International Franchise, AIR 1966 SC 942 case, the Supreme Court quashed an employment rule, which required the unmarried woman to give up her position when she married, as violative of Articles 14 and 15.

In T. Sareetha v. T. Venktasubbaiah, AIR 1983 AP 356 case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court analyzed the impact of the decree of restitution of conjugal rights on the basis of substantive inequality between wife and husband in the matter of pregnancy and accordingly quashed Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

In Kumari Sharda Mishra v. the State of U.P., AIR 1993 All 112 case, out of the 15 seats reserved for the dependents of ex-army personnel in the MBBS, 10 seats were reserved for the male candidates and 5 seats for female candidates. The Court held that the reservation being exclusively in favour of male candidates was in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution and it amounted to discrimination in favour of male candidates.

In Omana OOmen v. The FACT Ltd., AIR 1991 Ker 129 case, the petitioners (female) were working as apprentices in the respondent company and the respondent denied them the right to appear at the internal examination, which would be leading to absorption. The court held that such denial of the female apprentice trainees on the ground of sex is clearly violative of Articles 14 & 15 of the Constitution and directed the respondent company to permit the petitioners to appear at the internal examination.

Exceptions to Article 14:

It should be noted that there are no such things as absolute equality. Law should be equal among equals. In other words like should be treated alike. Under Art. 359, when the proclamation of emergency is in operation, the enforcement of Article 14 may be suspended during that period. Article 361 provides that the president and governors shall not be answerable to any Court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of the office. They also enjoy immunity from criminal and civil proceedings until certain conditions are fulfilled.

Members of Parliament and of State Legislature are not liable in respect of anything done or said within the House (Arts. 105 and 194). Foreign Diplomats are immune from the jurisdiction of Courts. Art. 31 C forms an exception by excluding some laws [for implementing any of the directive principles specified in Art. 39(b) or (c)] from the purview of Art. 14.

The rule of law does not prevent a certain class of persons from being subject to special rules, but the condition is that the classification should be reasonable. Thus members of armed forces are controlled by military rules. Certain members of society are governed by special rules in their profession i.e. lawyers, doctors, nurses, members of armed forces, and police. Such classes of people are treated differently from ordinary citizens. Similarly, Legislature cannot be barred from making special Acts for certain classes of people like women, children, people belonging to backward classes, etc. for their welfare and upliftment. Thus the rule of law does not prevent certain classes of persons from these special rules. 

In Kedar Nath Bajoria vs The State Of West Bengal, AIR 1953 SC 404 case, the Supreme Court held that the equal protection of the law guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution does not mean that all law must be general in character and universal in application and that the State is no longer to have the power of distinguishing and classifying persons or things for the purpose of the legislation. Court further observed that classification may not be perfectly scientific or legal. Its legality is to be determined after examining its total effect. Apart from the classification, the objects of legislation, social need, and reasonableness should also be examined.

As we have already mentioned, the classification expected in Article 14 should be reasonable. It should be based upon real differentiation and it should have a relation with the objects for which classification is made. The merits of one group under classification must be different from those of another group and such merits should have a relation with the objects of legislation. For classification to be reasonable, the following conditions must be satisfied.

• The creation of a group under classification should be based upon the fact that its merits are different from another group, and
• Such merits should have a real relationship with the objects of legislation.
• It should be legal

In Vijay Lakshmi vs. Punjab University and Others, AIR 2003 SC 3331 case, on the issue as to whether the state could establish separate colleges and schools for girls and appoint only lady principals and lady teachers to these schools. The Supreme Court held the provision valid and not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. If we study the classification on the merit and its relationship with the objects of such rule, we can confirm that the classification is reasonable.

Conclusion:

The Constitution of India not only grants equality to women but also empowers the State to adopt measures of positive discrimination in favour of women for neutralizing the cumulative socio-economic, education, and political disadvantages faced by them. When we are studying the importance of Article 14 in women empowerment, we shall study its use with all the fundamental rights granted by the Constitution simultaneously. Fundamental Rights, among others, ensure equality before the law and equal protection of the law; prohibits discrimination against any citizen on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth, and guarantee equality of opportunity to all citizens in matters relating to employment.