MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Justice Not Faith-Driven: Delhi HC Dismisses Plea for Special Protocols on Pardanashin Women; Stresses Universal Application of Article 21

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the Delhi High Court  rejected the plea seeking special police protocols for pardanashin women. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma emphasized the need for justice-driven decisions, affirming the universal applicability of Article 21 irrespective of religious customs like pardah.

The petitioner, Reshma, had sought directives for police sensitization in handling women observing pardah, under the claim of fundamental rights protection.

The crux of the petition involved evaluating whether the police’s legal framework sufficiently respected pardanashin women’s customs, and whether additional protocols were necessary. The Court concluded that existing legal safeguards were adequate and emphasizing extra procedural requirements could undermine police effectiveness in critical situations.

The judgment clarified that the legal concept of a pardanashin woman historically referred to women living in seclusion, unacquainted with worldly matters, and not necessarily linked to religious practices. The Court noted the evolution of women’s societal role, rendering the concept less relevant in modern urban contexts.

The Court held that the right to dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution extends universally, irrespective of religious practices like pardah. It also stated that religious rights under Article 25 are subject to public order and security considerations.

Justice Sharma highlighted the impracticality and potential hazard of imposing additional protocols on police, especially in urgent situations. The judgment emphasized the need for police to balance cultural sensitivity with public safety and efficient law enforcement.

The Court underlined that directives must be driven by justice, not faith, and any additional directive could be misused, obstructing police work. The judgment also recognized the need for legal restrictions on police investigations to balance societal safety with individual rights.

Petitioner’s request for specific police sensitization directives was dismissed, citing sufficiency of existing legal frameworks and the impracticality of additional directives.

Decision Date: March 1, 2024

Reshma vs. The Commissioner of Police

 

Latest Legal News