MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |    

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

 

Similar News