(Gender, tgpa) The Naz Foundation case (officially known as Naz Foundation v.

Government of NCT of Delhi, 2009) was a landmark judgment by the Delhi

High Court that dealt with the constitutionality of Section 377 of the Indian
Penal Code (IPC), which criminalized certain sexual acts, including homosexual
activity. The case played a pivotal role in the fight for LGBTQ+ rights in India
and the eventual decriminalization of same-sex relationships.
Background:
 Section 377 of the IPC, enacted in 1860 during British rule, criminalized
"carnal intercourse against the order of nature," which was widely
interpreted to include same-sex relationships.
 The Naz Foundation, an NGO working on HIV/AIDS prevention,
challenged Section 377, arguing that it hindered effective public health
efforts among men who have sex with men (MSM), a group particularly
vulnerable to HIV/AIDS, and violated the fundamental rights of LGBTQ+
individuals.
Key Arguments:
 The Naz Foundation argued that Section 377:
o Violated the right to equality under Article 14 of the Indian
Constitution, as it discriminated against individuals based on their
sexual orientation.
o Infringed the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21,
which includes the right to privacy and dignity.
o Violated the right to freedom of expression under Article 19(1)
(a), by criminalizing individuals for expressing their sexual
orientation.
 The Government of India, on the other hand, defended the law, arguing
that it reflected the moral values of Indian society and was needed to
prevent deviant sexual behavior.
Delhi High Court Judgment (2009):
In a historic judgment delivered on July 2, 2009, the Delhi High Court ruled in
favor of the Naz Foundation and read down Section 377, effectively
decriminalizing consensual homosexual acts between adults in private.
Key Points from the Judgment:
1. Violation of Fundamental Rights:
o The Court held that Section 377, as applied to consensual
homosexual acts, violated the right to equality under Article 14,
as it discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation, which is an
intrinsic characteristic of an individual.
o It also violated Article 15, which prohibits discrimination based on
"sex," and the Court interpreted this to include sexual orientation.
o The Court found that Section 377 violated the right to privacy and
personal liberty under Article 21, emphasizing that consensual
relations between adults in private should not be subject to state
interference.
2. Public Health and HIV/AIDS:
o The Court recognized that criminalizing homosexuality under
Section 377 created social stigma and prevented people from
coming forward for HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment programs,
thus hampering public health efforts.
3. Moral or Social Disapproval Not a Justification for Law:
o The Court held that morality or social disapproval cannot be a
justification for curbing fundamental rights. It emphasized that
constitutional morality should prevail over public morality.
Aftermath:
 While the Delhi High Court’s decision was hailed as a major victory for
LGBTQ+ rights in India, the ruling was challenged in the Supreme Court
of India.
 In 2013, the Supreme Court, in the case of Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz
Foundation, overturned the Delhi High Court judgment, recriminalizing
consensual homosexual acts by stating that it was the legislature's role
to amend the law and that the LGBTQ+ population constituted a
"minuscule fraction."
Final Decriminalization in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018):
  The Naz Foundation case set the stage for a larger public discourse on
LGBTQ+ rights and contributed to widespread support for legal reform.
 In 2018, the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Navtej Singh Johar v.
Union of India, delivered a historic judgment, decriminalizing Section
377 in its application to consensual homosexual acts between adults.
The Court ruled that Section 377 was unconstitutional insofar as it
criminalized consensual same-sex relations, citing the right to equality,
privacy, and dignity under the Constitution of India.
Significance of the Naz Foundation Case:
 The Naz Foundation case is considered the first significant legal victory
for LGBTQ+ rights in India and laid the groundwork for the 2018 Supreme
Court decision.
 It was a turning point in the LGBTQ+ rights movement in India, raising
awareness and mobilizing support for decriminalization and equal rights
for sexual minorities.
In summary, the Naz Foundation case was a crucial step in the legal battle to
decriminalize homosexuality in India and challenged the discriminatory nature
of Section 377, eventually leading to the historic 2018 Supreme Court ruling
that granted LGBTQ+ individuals their right to equality and dignity under the
law.

(Gender, posh) The Vishaka case, officially known as Vishaka v. State of

Rajasthan, is a landmark judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India in
1997. This case played a pivotal role in defining the law against sexual
harassment at the workplace and establishing guidelines to protect women's
rights in professional environments.
Background of the Case:
 The case arose from the tragic incident involving Bhanwari Devi, a social
worker in Rajasthan, who was gang-raped in 1992 while trying to prevent
a child marriage. Despite her attempts to raise the issue, her pleas went
unheeded, highlighting the systemic failure to protect women and
address sexual violence.
  Following the incident, Bhanwari Devi and the Vishaka NGO filed a
public interest litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court, seeking justice and
demanding the formulation of guidelines to prevent sexual harassment
of women at the workplace.
Key Issues:
 The case raised crucial questions regarding:
o The lack of effective laws and mechanisms to protect women from
sexual harassment at work.
o The need for explicit guidelines to ensure safe and secure working
conditions for women.
o The failure of state machinery to protect women's rights and
dignity.
Supreme Court Judgment:
In a landmark judgment delivered on August 13, 1997, the Supreme Court of
India laid down several significant principles and guidelines regarding sexual
harassment at the workplace.
Key Highlights of the Judgment:
1. Definition of Sexual Harassment:
o The Court defined sexual harassment as unwelcome sexual
advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical
conduct of a sexual nature. The Court recognized that such
behavior could affect a woman's work environment and lead to a
hostile workplace.
2. Establishment of Guidelines:
o The Supreme Court issued comprehensive guidelines aimed at
preventing sexual harassment in workplaces, which included:
 Prohibition of sexual harassment in the workplace.
 Establishment of complaint mechanisms for victims to
report incidents of harassment.
 Mandatory training for employees to ensure awareness
regarding sexual harassment and women's rights.
  Duty of employers to create a safe working environment
and take action against offenders.
3. Responsibility of the State:
o The Court emphasized the responsibility of the state and
employers to prevent sexual harassment and provide protection to
women. It acknowledged that the right to work with dignity is a
fundamental right under Article 14 (right to equality), Article 15
(prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sex), and Article 21
(right to life and personal liberty) of the Indian Constitution.
4. Impact on Existing Laws:
o The guidelines laid down in the Vishaka case became the basis for
subsequent legislative action. They highlighted the need for a
dedicated law to address sexual harassment at the workplace,
leading to the enactment of the Sexual Harassment of Women at
Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
Significance of the Vishaka Case:
 The Vishaka judgment is regarded as a landmark ruling that provided a
robust legal framework for addressing sexual harassment in India. It
marked a significant shift in the legal landscape, recognizing the need for
women's protection and dignity in workplaces.
 The case played a crucial role in raising awareness about women's rights
and led to the creation of a legislative framework to combat sexual
harassment.
 The guidelines established by the Supreme Court became a reference
point for future cases and were instrumental in shaping public discourse
on sexual harassment and gender equality in India.
Conclusion:
The Vishaka case stands as a landmark judgment in the context of women's
rights in India, providing essential protections against sexual harassment and
contributing to the establishment of a safer working environment for women.
It underscored the need for systemic changes in the approach to gender-based
violence and discrimination, influencing subsequent legislation and policies
aimed at empowering women in the workplace.
(Gender, tgpa) The NALSA case (National Legal Services Authority v. Union of
India) is a landmark judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India on April
15, 2014. This case addressed the rights of transgender individuals in India,
affirming their status as a third gender and recognizing their fundamental
rights under the Constitution.
Background of the Case:
 The case arose from a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the National
Legal Services Authority (NALSA) in 2012, seeking legal recognition and
protection for the rights of transgender individuals.
 The petition highlighted the discrimination, social stigma, and violence
faced by transgender persons, who were often marginalized and denied
their basic rights.
 Various organizations and activists supported the petition, advocating for
the recognition of transgender individuals as a distinct gender category
and the need for legal protection against discrimination.
Key Issues:
The primary issues addressed in the NALSA case included:
 The constitutional recognition of transgender individuals as a third
gender.
 The need for legal protection against discrimination and violence based
on gender identity.
 The right to self-identification and access to social, educational, and
healthcare services without discrimination.
Supreme Court Judgment:
In its judgment, the Supreme Court of India made several significant
declarations and rulings regarding the rights of transgender individuals:
1. Recognition as a Third Gender:
o The Court recognized transgender individuals as a third gender,
distinct from male and female. This recognition was grounded in
the principles of equality and non-discrimination enshrined in the
Constitution.
 o The Court stated that gender identity is an integral part of the
right to dignity and self-determination.
2. Fundamental Rights:
o The Supreme Court held that transgender individuals are entitled
to the same fundamental rights as any other citizen, including:
 Right to equality under Article 14.
 Right to non-discrimination under Article 15.
 Right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
o The Court emphasized that any discrimination against transgender
individuals is a violation of their constitutional rights.
3. Self-Identification:
o The judgment affirmed the right of transgender individuals to self-
identify their gender. It stated that they should not be forced to
undergo medical or surgical procedures to obtain legal
recognition.
o The Court directed the central and state governments to allow
transgender persons to identify themselves as male, female, or
third gender.
4. Social Welfare Measures:
o The Supreme Court directed the government to take positive
measures to improve the living conditions of transgender persons
and ensure their access to education, healthcare, employment,
and social welfare schemes.
o It urged the government to formulate policies to promote the
welfare and empowerment of transgender individuals.
5. Amendment to Laws:
o The Court called for the amendment of existing laws to remove
discriminatory provisions and ensure legal recognition of
transgender rights.
Significance of the NALSA Case:
  The NALSA judgment is considered a historic ruling that marked a
significant step forward for transgender rights in India. It provided legal
recognition and protection to a previously marginalized community.
 The case set a precedent for the legal acknowledgment of gender
diversity and emphasized the importance of social justice and equality.
 The ruling has had far-reaching implications, leading to increased
awareness and advocacy for transgender rights, as well as policy changes
at various levels of government.
 It contributed to the ongoing discourse on gender rights in India and
encouraged efforts to combat discrimination and violence against
transgender individuals.
Conclusion:
The NALSA case represents a landmark moment in the recognition of
transgender rights in India. By affirming the status of transgender individuals as
a third gender and upholding their fundamental rights, the Supreme Court has
significantly advanced the cause of equality, dignity, and social justice for all
individuals, regardless of their gender identity. The ruling has inspired further
advocacy for legal protections and social acceptance of transgender persons in
Indian society.
(Gender, tgpa) The Navtej Singh Johar case is a landmark judgment by the
Supreme Court of India delivered on September 6, 2018, which decriminalized
consensual homosexual acts between adults by reading down Section 377 of
the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This case is significant in the context of LGBTQ+
rights in India and marked a crucial step toward achieving equality and dignity
for sexual minorities.
Background of the Case:
 Section 377, originally enacted in 1860, criminalized "carnal intercourse
against the order of nature," which included consensual same-sex
relationships. This law had been used to harass and discriminate against
LGBTQ+ individuals for many years.
 In 2018, Navtej Singh Johar and several other petitioners challenged the
constitutionality of Section 377 in the Supreme Court. They argued that
 the law was unconstitutional, violated fundamental rights, and infringed
on their right to privacy and dignity.
Key Issues:
The primary issues in the Navtej Singh Johar case included:
 Whether Section 377 was unconstitutional and violated the fundamental
rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution, including:
o Right to equality under Article 14.
o Right to non-discrimination under Article 15.
o Right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
o Right to privacy as recognized in the Puttaswamy case (2017).
 The need to reassess societal norms and legal provisions that
criminalized consensual same-sex relationships.
Supreme Court Judgment:
In a unanimous judgment, the Supreme Court delivered a progressive ruling
that decriminalized consensual same-sex acts between adults.
Key Highlights of the Judgment:
1. Reading Down of Section 377:
o The Court ruled that Section 377, in so far as it criminalized
consensual sexual conduct between adults, was unconstitutional.
It was held that this provision violated the right to equality, dignity,
and privacy of individuals.
o The Court emphasized that consensual acts in private between
adults should not be subjected to state interference.
2. Recognition of Sexual Orientation:
o The judgment acknowledged that sexual orientation is an intrinsic
part of an individual’s identity and that LGBTQ+ individuals have
the same rights as heterosexual individuals.
o The Court stated that criminalizing consensual same-sex
relationships was a violation of fundamental rights and
perpetuated discrimination and social stigma.
 3. Affirmation of Dignity:
o The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of dignity and self-
identity, asserting that every individual has the right to live with
dignity and express their sexual orientation without fear of
criminalization or societal stigma.
4. Overruling of Suresh Kumar Koushal Case:
o The judgment effectively overturned the 2013 Supreme Court
ruling in Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation, which had
reinstated Section 377. The Court criticized the earlier ruling for
being regressive and detrimental to the rights of sexual minorities.
5. Call for Societal Change:
o The judgment urged society to embrace diversity and accept
LGBTQ+ individuals as equal members of the community. It
emphasized the need for societal acceptance and the dismantling
of prejudice against sexual minorities.
Significance of the Navtej Singh Johar Case:
 The Navtej Singh Johar judgment is a historic step towards achieving
equality for LGBTQ+ individuals in India. It marked the decriminalization
of consensual same-sex relationships, leading to widespread celebrations
within the LGBTQ+ community and among their allies.
 The ruling has had a profound impact on public discourse regarding
LGBTQ+ rights, encouraging discussions on inclusion, acceptance, and
equal rights.
 The judgment also set a legal precedent for further advocacy and
legislative reforms aimed at protecting the rights of sexual minorities and
combating discrimination and violence against LGBTQ+ individuals.
Conclusion:
The Navtej Singh Johar case represents a transformative moment in the
struggle for LGBTQ+ rights in India. By decriminalizing consensual same-sex
relationships and affirming the dignity and equality of LGBTQ+ individuals, the
Supreme Court has significantly advanced the cause of social justice and
human rights in the country. The ruling has not only changed the legal
landscape for LGBTQ+ individuals but has also fostered a greater understanding
and acceptance of sexual diversity in Indian society.
(Gender, era) In the case of Uttarakhand Mahila Kalyan Parishad v. State of
Uttar Pradesh, reported in 1993 Supp (1) SCC 480, the Supreme Court of India
(comprising a two-judge bench) addressed the issue of gender-based pay
discrimination in the education sector. This case dealt with the discriminatory
treatment of female employees, particularly female teachers, compared to
their male counterparts in terms of pay and promotional opportunities.
Key Facts of the Case:
The Uttarakhand Mahila Kalyan Parishad, a welfare organization, filed a petition
challenging the lower pay scales and fewer promotional avenues available to
female employees and lady teachers in the education sector in comparison to
their male counterparts. The petition raised concerns over gender-based
discrimination in salaries and promotional opportunities despite both male and
female teachers performing the same duties.
Legal Issues:
 Gender Discrimination in Pay: The key issue was whether the
differentiation in pay scales between male and female teachers,
performing the same duties, amounted to a violation of fundamental
rights under the Constitution.
 Disparity in Promotional Avenues: The case also questioned the limited
promotional opportunities available to female teachers as compared to
male teachers.
Judgment and Observations:
The Supreme Court found that the differential treatment between male and
female teachers in terms of pay and promotional opportunities was
discriminatory and unjustified. The Court held that:
 Equal Pay for Equal Work: The Court emphasized that there is no
constitutional justification for differentiating between male and female
teachers when they are performing the same duties. Under the
Constitution of India, particularly Article 14 (Right to Equality) and
Article 16 (Equality of Opportunity in Employment), both male and
female teachers are entitled to equal pay for equal work.
  Promotional Avenues: The Court also observed that there was no valid
reason for offering fewer promotional opportunities to female
employees. The Court directed the authorities to examine the issue of
promotional avenues and ensure that women are provided with
additional avenues for promotion, equal to those available to men.
Direction Issued by the Court:
The Supreme Court directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to:
1. Equate Pay Scales: Ensure that the pay scales of female teachers and
employees are brought on par with their male counterparts.
2. Review Promotional Opportunities: Examine the matter of promotional
avenues and provide equal and additional opportunities to female
employees to rectify the existing disparity.
Significance:
This case is significant for its stand on gender equality in employment,
particularly in the public sector. It upheld the principle of equal pay for equal
work, reaffirming that any discrimination based on gender in the workplace is
unconstitutional. It also brought attention to the need for gender parity in
promotional opportunities.
This judgment reinforced the protection of women’s rights in the workforce
and ensured that discriminatory practices in employment, especially in the
education sector, are addressed and rectified.

(Gender, era) In the case of A.M. Shaila v. Chairman, Cochin Port Trust,
reported in (1995) 2 LLJ 1193 and 1994 SCC OnLine Ker 572, the Kerala High
Court dealt with the issue of gender-based exclusion from certain types of
employment, specifically the exclusion of women from working as shed clerks
in ports.
Key Facts of the Case:
A.M. Shaila, a female applicant, challenged the exclusion of women from being
employed as shed clerks in the Cochin Port Trust, arguing that this policy was
discriminatory and violated her rights under the Constitution of India. The
employment policy in question prevented women from being considered for
the position due to the physical demands and hazardous nature of the work
involved.
Legal Issues:
 Sex-based Exclusion from Employment: The main issue was whether the
exclusion of women from certain employment roles, such as shed clerks,
violated the constitutional prohibition against discrimination on the
ground of sex under Article 15(1) and the guarantee of equality of
opportunity in matters of employment under Article 16(2).
Judgment and Observations:
The Kerala High Court upheld the exclusion of women from employment as
shed clerks, ruling that the policy was not discriminatory in a constitutional
sense. The Court observed that:
1. Physical Structure and Susceptibilities: The exclusion of women from
this particular role was based on their “physical structure” and “special
susceptibilities”, which placed them in a distinct class. The Court
reasoned that the differentiation was not made “solely” on the ground
of sex but also on other factors such as the physical strength required
for the job, the hazardous nature of the work, and social factors like
working late at night.
2. Reasonable Classification: The Court held that such differentiation could
be justified under the Constitution's provisions allowing for reasonable
classification based on distinct circumstances. The Court pointed out
that the nature of the work as a shed clerk, which involved heavy
physical labor and often required working in hazardous conditions or at
odd hours, made it reasonable for the authorities to distinguish between
male and female candidates.
3. Not Solely Based on Sex: The Court emphasized that the exclusion was
not based purely on sex discrimination but was rooted in practical
considerations, including physical strength and the inherent challenges
of the job. These factors, along with the sensitivities associated with
women’s health and safety, were key justifications for maintaining the
policy.
Key Paragraphs:
  Paragraphs 14-15: Discuss the physical and social factors differentiating
women from men in the context of the job in question.
 Paragraphs 24-25: Outline the reasoning that the exclusion was not
"solely" on the ground of sex but included other factors, such as the
physical demands and risks associated with the work.
Significance:
This judgment reflects the Court’s approach to sex-based exclusions in
employment when justified by physical, social, and safety concerns. While the
Court did not entirely dismiss the possibility of gender-based discrimination, it
found that in this specific context, the exclusion of women was not arbitrary or
solely based on their gender but on the nature of the work itself.
The case is significant as it illustrates a nuanced interpretation of constitutional
guarantees of equality and how these can be reconciled with practical
considerations in employment, especially in roles requiring physical strength
and posing safety concerns

(Gender, 15 and 16) In the case of Hotel Priya v. State of Maharashtra (2022),
the court dealt with a challenge against a regulation imposed by the State of
Maharashtra that placed a cap on the number of women allowed to perform
in an orchestra in bars and similar establishments. The case primarily
concerned the constitutionality of such a rule, examining whether it violated
fundamental rights.
Key Facts of the Case:
Hotel , along with other establishments, challenged the Maharashtra state rule
that restricted the number of women performers in orchestras to a certain
limit. The regulation was imposed ostensibly to protect women from
exploitation and maintain decorum in establishments like bars, but it was seen
by many as arbitrary and based on stereotypical assumptions about women.
Legal Issue:
The core issue before the court was whether the cap on the number of women
performers in orchestras violated Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 15
(Prohibition of Discrimination on the grounds of sex) of the Constitution of
India. The petitioners argued that the rule was discriminatory and arbitrary, as
it sought to limit women’s participation based on preconceived stereotypes
rather than any rational or objective criteria.
Judgment:
The court struck down the rule relating to the cap on the number of women
performers as unconstitutional. The reasoning was that such a cap constituted
arbitrary discrimination and did not satisfy the test of reasonable
classification under Article 14.
Key Observations by the Court:
1. Arbitrariness of the Cap: The court held that the imposition of a cap on
the number of women allowed to perform was arbitrary and lacked any
sound basis. It did not address any genuine concern related to the well-
being or protection of women but was rather an imposition based on
preconceived societal stereotypes.
2. Stereotyped Perceptions of Women Performers: The court noted that
the reason provided for such a cap seemed to stem from the
stereotypical and preconceived perception that women who perform in
bars and other such establishments belong to a particular class of
society, which is socially undesirable. This perception was seen as
prejudiced and reflective of a mindset that sought to limit women's
autonomy based on unfounded assumptions.
3. Violation of Article 14: The court ruled that the classification created by
limiting the number of women performers failed the test of reasonable
classification under Article 14, which requires a rational nexus between
the classification and the object sought to be achieved. The court found
no legitimate connection between the cap and any valid public interest,
thereby rendering the classification unreasonable.
4. Freedom and Equality of Women Performers: The judgment reaffirmed
that women have the right to pursue their profession without arbitrary
restrictions, and limiting their participation in orchestras based on
gender alone was a clear violation of their fundamental rights under
Article 15.
Significance:
This case is significant for its role in addressing gender-based discrimination
and challenging stereotypical notions that limit women’s participation in
certain professions. The court's decision upheld the principle of equality and
the freedom of women to engage in occupations of their choice without
unjustified restrictions.
By striking down the cap, the court reinforced the notion that laws based on
archaic or stereotypical perceptions cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny,
particularly when they infringe upon women's rights to equality and non-
discrimination. This case serves as a precedent in preventing arbitrary
restrictions on women in the workforce and promotes a more equitable
approach to gender in employment.
(Gender, 15 and 16) In the case of R.S. v v. State of Punjab (AIR 1972 P&H
117), the Punjab and Haryana High Court addressed the issue of whether
excluding women from certain posts in men's jails violated the Constitution,
particularly the right to equality under Article 14 and Article 15(1) of the
Constitution of India.
Key Facts of the Case:
The case arose from an order in Punjab that made women ineligible for all
posts in men’s jails, except for clerical positions or as matrons (nurses). As a
result, women were automatically excluded from promotion to the higher post
of superintendent of jails, which was traditionally reserved for male officers.
The petitioner challenged this order, arguing that it amounted to gender-based
discrimination in violation of their fundamental rights.
Legal Issue:
The central issue was whether the exclusion of women from most positions in
men’s jails, based solely on their gender, violated Article 15(1) (which prohibits
discrimination on the grounds of sex) and whether such a classification could
be considered reasonable under Article 14 (right to equality).
Judgment and Observations by the Court:
The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the decision of the state to
exclude women from certain posts in men’s jails, ruling that the classification
based on gender was reasonable and justified in this particular context.
 1. Reasonable Classification: The Court held that the exclusion of women
from certain positions in men’s jails was not solely based on sex, but
rather on practical considerations such as the hazardous nature of the
duties. Women working in men’s jails would be required to have direct
contact with habitual and hardened male criminals, which posed
significant safety risks.
2. Nexus with the Object: The Court found that the classification was not
arbitrary, as it had a direct nexus with the object sought to be achieved
— ensuring the safety and well-being of female employees in a
potentially dangerous environment. Thus, the policy was seen as a
protective measure rather than discriminatory.
3. Sex as a Sound Classification: The Court reasoned that sex can be a valid
ground for classification when it is based on factors other than sex
alone, such as the nature of the work and the risks involved. In this case,
the Court concluded that it was sound classification to exclude women
from posts in men’s jails, given the physical and security concerns
associated with the job.
4. No Need to Consider Article 15(3): The Court found it unnecessary to
invoke Article 15(3) (which allows the state to make special provisions
for women) because the classification was already found to be
reasonable under Article 15(1). The exclusion was not considered
discriminatory but was seen as a practical distinction made to ensure
women’s safety in a highly sensitive environment.
Significance:
This case is significant because it highlighted that sex-based classifications can
be upheld if they are reasonable and if there is a legitimate concern for safety
or public interest. The Court acknowledged that gender-based distinctions are
permissible when justified by practical necessities rather than purely on the
basis of sex.
Key Takeaway:
The Court ruled that the classification based on sex was justified because it was
linked to the specific duties and dangers involved in managing male inmates,
thereby ensuring the protection of female employees. It also emphasized that
such a policy did not violate the Constitution as long as it served a legitimate
purpose, thus establishing the principle that reasonable gender-based
classifications can withstand constitutional scrutiny when necessary for public
welfare or safety concerns.

(Gender, era, 15, 16) in the case of Hindustan Latex Ltd. v. Maniamma (1994) 2
KLT 111, the Kerala High Court dealt with the issue of gender-based
discrimination in promotions, specifically focusing on the case where women
were denied promotions as security guards and consequently deprived of the
opportunity to earn higher pay and benefits.
Key Facts of the Case:
Maniamma, a female security guard employed by Hindustan Latex Ltd.,
challenged the company's decision to deny her promotion. The company had a
policy that excluded women from promotional opportunities available to male
security guards. The employer contended that the post of a lady security guard
was created as a distinct position within the security department for a specific
purpose, which had no further promotional avenues.
Legal Issue:
The key legal question was whether the denial of promotions to women
security guards amounted to gender discrimination, violating their
fundamental rights under Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 15
(Prohibition of Discrimination on the grounds of sex) of the Constitution of
India.
Judgment and Observations:
The Kerala High Court ruled that the denial of promotions to women security
guards was unconstitutional. The Court found that the policy adopted by
Hindustan Latex Ltd. was discriminatory and not justified under the provisions
of the Constitution.
1. Unconstitutionality of Denial of Promotions: The Court held that
denying promotions to women security guards while providing such
opportunities to their male counterparts amounted to gender-based
discrimination. This practice was unconstitutional as it violated Article
15(1), which prohibits discrimination on the grounds of sex.
 2. Article 15(3) Cannot be Used to Discriminate: The Court emphasized
that Article 15(3) of the Constitution, which allows the State to make
special provisions for women, cannot be used to justify discrimination
against women. The provision is intended to allow positive action or
protective measures in favor of women, not to limit or deny them rights
or benefits. Therefore, any policy or practice that discriminates against
women in employment would be contrary to the spirit of Article 15(3).
3. Employers Must Justify Denial of Promotion: The employer’s contention
that the position of a lady security guard was a separate and distinct
post created for a specific purpose, and thus excluded from promotional
avenues, was found to be unsustainable. The Court held that the burden
was on the employer to show that there were no discriminatory reasons
for denying promotions to female employees. Simply labeling the post as
"distinct" without valid justification could not be used as a defense to
avoid providing equal promotional opportunities.
4. Equal Opportunity for Women: The Court reiterated the principle that
women should have equal access to promotions and benefits if they are
performing the same duties as their male counterparts. The practice of
denying women the same promotional opportunities as men,
particularly when they are in the same department, was found to be
arbitrary and in violation of the Constitution's guarantee of equality.
Significance:
This case is significant for its interpretation of Article 15(3), clarifying that
special provisions for women must be in favor of women and not against
them. The judgment strengthened the principle of gender equality in
employment, particularly in cases where women are denied equal treatment
under the pretext of separate job roles or positions.
Key Takeaway:
The denial of promotions to women based on their gender, even under the
guise of special provisions or distinct roles, is unconstitutional. Employers must
ensure that their policies do not discriminate against women and that any
differential treatment must be supported by valid, non-discriminatory reasons.
This case reaffirmed the right of women to equal treatment in the workplace,
particularly concerning promotions, pay, and benefits.
(Gender, era, 15, 16) In the case of Walter Alfred Baid v. Union of India (AIR
1976 Del 302), the Delhi High Court addressed the issue of gender-based
restrictions in the context of employment. Specifically, the court examined a
rule in the Delhi Nursing School that provided that only women could be
appointed as senior nursing tutors. The case raised important questions about
gender discrimination and equality in employment.
Key Facts of the Case:
Walter Alfred Baid, a male nurse, challenged the rule that restricted the post of
senior nursing tutor to women only in nursing schools in Delhi. He argued that
the rule was discriminatory and violated his fundamental rights under the
Constitution of India, particularly Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 16
(Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment).
Legal Issue:
The legal issue before the court was whether the rule that allowed only women
to be appointed as senior nursing tutors amounted to discrimination on the
basis of sex in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The court had
to decide whether the rule could be justified as a reasonable classification or
whether it was an arbitrary and discriminatory restriction.
Judgment and Observations:
The Delhi High Court struck down the rule that restricted the position of
senior nursing tutors to women, holding that the rule amounted to
discrimination based solely on sex and violated the constitutional guarantee of
equality.
1. Absolute Equality Between the Sexes: The court disagreed with the
reasoning in the R.S. Singh case, which upheld gender-based
classifications in certain contexts (such as excluding women from men’s
jails). The Delhi High Court, however, asserted that there should be
absolute equality between the sexes in employment. It held that any
rule that makes an entire sex ineligible for a post, based solely on their
gender, is discriminatory.
 2. Discrimination Based on Sex Alone: The court emphasized that even if
there are disparities between the sexes, these cannot be used to justify
blanket prohibitions on one sex from holding certain positions. The
court ruled that such prohibitions would still amount to discrimination
on the ground of sex alone, which is expressly prohibited under the
Constitution.
3. No Valid Justification for the Rule: The court found that the rule
restricting the position of senior nursing tutor to women had no valid
justification. It was based on an arbitrary classification, and there was
no logical connection between the duties of a senior nursing tutor and
the requirement that only women should hold the position. The Court
emphasized that nursing and educational qualifications should
determine eligibility for the post, not gender.
4. Article 16(2) and Public Employment: The Court also invoked Article
16(2), which prohibits discrimination in public employment on various
grounds, including sex. It held that the rule violated Article 16(2) because
it denied men the opportunity to compete for the position of senior
nursing tutor based solely on their gender.
Key Observations:
 The Court ruled that gender-based classifications in employment must
meet the test of reasonableness and have a nexus with the duties of the
position.
 It held that blanket exclusions of one gender from a particular position,
based solely on sex, cannot be justified under the Constitution.
Significance:
This judgment is significant because it strengthened the principle of gender
equality in public employment and reinforced the idea that discrimination
based on sex alone is unconstitutional. The case stands as an important
precedent in challenging stereotypical assumptions about gender roles in the
workplace and ensures that both men and women are given equal
opportunity to hold positions based on their qualifications, not their gender.
Key Takeaway:
The Delhi High Court held that any rule or policy that excludes an entire sex
from holding a particular post is discriminatory and unconstitutional. There
must be absolute equality between the sexes, and any form of classification
based on sex must be justified by practical, job-related reasons. The ruling
highlights the Court's commitment to upholding gender equality in
employment opportunities.
ART 15 and 16 – indra Sawhney, n.m Thomas, m.r Balaji, hotel Priya, r.s singh

In Tamil Nadu v. Suhas Katti (2004), a landmark case, the accused was
convicted under the Information Technology Act, 2000, for posting obscene
and defamatory content online. This case marked one of the earliest
convictions under the IT Act related to cybercrime, particularly focusing on
cyberstalking and defamation.
Key Facts of the Case:
The complainant, a college student, had rejected the romantic advances of
Suhas Katti, a boy who was infatuated with her. In retaliation, Suhas Katti
engaged in cyber harassment by posting a pornographic image of the girl
online and sharing defamatory content, including sending obscene messages
through a Yahoo group. His actions led to significant mental anguish for the
complainant and defamed her character. Initially, the victim hesitated to report
the crime due to social stigma and the fear of public exposure, but after seeing
other women face similar harassment, she gathered the courage to approach
the Chennai Cyber Crime Cell.
Legal Proceedings:
 The Cyber Crime Cell in Chennai swiftly took up the investigation, and
within seven months, the accused was arrested and tried under various
sections of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Indian Penal
Code (IPC).
 The specific provisions used in the case were Section 67 of the IT Act,
which deals with publishing or transmitting obscene material in
electronic form, and Section 509 IPC, which addresses insult to the
modesty of a woman.
Judgment:
In 2004, the Metropolitan Magistrate Court in Chennai found Suhas Katti
guilty of the charges. He was sentenced to two years of rigorous
imprisonment and fined for his actions. This case is notable for the speedy trial
and conviction, which was achieved in seven months, a rare instance in the
context of cybercrime cases at that time.
Key Observations by the Court:
1. Importance of IT Act in Cybercrimes: The case underlined the relevance
of the Information Technology Act, 2000, in addressing cyber offenses,
particularly those involving the defamation and harassment of women
in the digital space.
2. First Conviction Under IT Act for Cyberstalking: This case became one of
the first in India to secure a conviction under Section 67 of the IT Act,
setting a precedent for future cases involving cyber harassment and
cyberstalking.
3. Recognition of Cyber Harassment: The Court emphasized that the
harassment of women in the virtual space was as serious as harassment
in the physical world. The conviction reflected the judiciary’s recognition
of the gravity of cyber offenses and the need for swift justice.
Significance:
 The Suhas Katti case was a landmark judgment for cyber law in India, as
it demonstrated that the legal system was capable of addressing
cybercrime effectively, especially when it came to the harassment of
women online.
 It encouraged victims of cyber harassment to come forward and report
incidents, providing them with confidence that legal mechanisms were
in place to protect their rights.
 This case also highlighted the impact of social stigma on women in India,
especially in reporting online sexual harassment, and how the judicial
system could work to overcome these barriers by delivering timely
justice.
Key Takeaway:
Tamil Nadu v. Suhas Katti serves as a landmark example of the effective use of
the Information Technology Act, 2000, in dealing with cyberstalking and
online defamation. It reinforced that cybercrimes, especially those targeting
women, are punishable under Indian law and that swift justice can act as a
deterrent for future offenses. The case also paved the way for the development
of cyber law and the recognition of cyber harassment as a serious issue in
India.

Constitution UDHR
Art 14 Art 7
Art 15(1) Art 2(1)
Art 16(1) Art 21(2)
Art 19(1) Art 19, 20(1), 23(4)
Art 20(1) Art 11(2)
Art 21 Art. 3 and 9
Art 23(1) Art 4
Art 25(1) Art 18

CEDAW Convention on elimination of discrimination of all forms against

women
India ratified CEDAW as per 1993
Yogyakarta principles emerged out of an international meeting of experts in
Yogyakarta in Indonesia in 2006. The Yogyakarta principles addressed a broad
range of human rights standards and their applications to issues of sexual
orientation and gender identity. The preamble of these principles
acknowledges that violence, harassment, discrimination, exclusion,
stigmatization and prejudice have been directed against persons because of
their sexual orientation or gender identity across the world. Some of the
principles covered in the Yogyakarta principles include the
1. universal application of human rights
2. Right to life, liberty, security and privacy
3. Right to fair trial, freedom from torture, cruel , inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment.
4. Right to protection from sale and trafficking of human beings
5. Economic, social and cultural rights
6. Freedom of speech , expression and assembly
7. Freedom of movement
8. Right to family and participation in public life
9. Right to remedies