WOMEN'S DAY SPECIAL: KEY PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT RULINGS ON WOMEN'S EMPOWERMENT:

Even after 77 years of independence, the reality remains that women still require transformative justice and societal upliftment. While progress has been made, the gap between equality and empowerment endures. The debate over the necessity of positive discrimination to secure women's rights remains pertinent, especially considering that 67% of women reside in rural areas where discrimination and gender-based violence are prevalent. In urban settings, women continue to face obstacles in securing equal employment opportunities and dealing with workplace harassment. Female prisoners also experience unique challenges stemming from biological factors.

Recent landmark rulings by the Punjab & Haryana High Court shed light on these persistent issues and emphasize the judiciary's role in empowering women. As we observe Women's Day, it is important to recognize how the High Court has played a transformative role in advancing justice for women.

Recent landmark judgments by the Punjab & Haryana High Court highlight the ongoing challenges faced by women and the judiciary's role in their empowerment. This Women's Day, we reflect on the Court's transformative impact in advancing justice for women.

In XXX v. State of Punjab, the Punjab & Haryana High Court rejected a father's habeas corpus plea seeking custody of his 30-year-old daughter to send her back to her marital home. Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul emphasized that a woman's identity and autonomy are not defined by her relationships or societal roles. She affirmed that the Constitution protects her right to live freely and make her own choices without external interference.

In X v. State of Punjab, the Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that unmarried women exercising their right to sexual autonomy cannot be denied the option of seeking medical termination of pregnancy. Hearing the plea of a Class XII student seeking to terminate her 26-week pregnancy, Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj directed a medical board to reassess the possibility, noting that the foetus was likely to survive if delivered. The Court stated that while termination may have been considered if the foetus or mother faced grave harm, mental shock or stigma from a consensual relationship did not warrant termination at this stage. Justice Bhardwaj emphasized that sexual autonomy comes with responsibilities, and individuals may have to accept the consequences when they cannot be undone.

In Neetu Sharma v. State of Punjab, the Punjab & Haryana High Court chose not to refer to a female teacher as a "mistress," a term used by the Punjab Government for the position. Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma acknowledged the term’s inappropriateness, stating that while the Court would not alter the government's terminology, it would instead refer to the petitioner as a "Teacher" in line with Supreme Court guidance on using respectful language for women.

In XXX v. Fortis Hospital Mohali & Ors, the Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that a woman living separately from her husband without a divorce can terminate her pregnancy without his consent under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act. Justice Kuldeep Tiwari, citing X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department and Rule 3(B)(c) of the MTP Rules, 2003, interpreted "change of marital status" to include women separated from their husbands, making them eligible for pregnancy termination.

In Veena Yadav v. State of Haryana, the Punjab & Haryana High Court granted pre-arrest bail to a mother accused in a fraud case, noting her 10-year-old daughter's welfare. With the father already in custody in the Haryana Post Matric Scholarship Corruption Scam, Justice Anoop Chitkara emphasized the Court's duty to protect the child's interests. He noted that the mother, as the primary custodian, had expressed doubts about relatives' ability to ensure her daughter's safety, education, and well-being.

In Karishma v. State of Haryana, the Punjab & Haryana High Court imposed a ₹3 lakh cost on the Haryana Staff Selection Commission for unfairly disqualifying a woman candidate for the Constable post. Despite qualifying the exam, her height was incorrectly measured during the physical test, and her claim was repeatedly rejected. Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu deemed the Commission's actions illegal, noting the candidate had faced six years of unnecessary litigation and awarded the cost to ease her hardship.

In Swaranjit Kaur v. State of Punjab, the Punjab & Haryana High Court urged reconsideration of the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940, which limit medical reimbursement benefits to a female employee's biological parents, excluding her in-laws. Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi noted that denying medical benefits to dependent in-laws while extending them to biological parents is unfair. The Court highlighted that the Government of India already allows female employees to choose between supporting their parents or in-laws for medical benefits.

In Dr. Anant Ram v. State of Haryana, the Punjab & Haryana High Court denied pre-arrest bail to a doctor accused of running an illegal sex determination racket. Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul highlighted that female infanticide remains a serious concern, especially in the region, and condemned unethical medical practitioners who violate their oath by covertly conducting such tests, enabling this grave crime.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court recently took suo moto cognizance of village girls dropping out of school due to the lack of schools and infrastructure along the Patiala-Rajpura Highway. Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Vikas Suri directed the State counsel to submit a report on the situation, particularly regarding High School and Higher Secondary School girls affected by these issues, as highlighted in a local daily.

This Women's Day, we recognize the judiciary's vital role in advancing women's rights and empowerment. The landmark rulings highlighted here expose ongoing challenges while showcasing the courts' efforts to drive transformative justice—whether by challenging societal norms, protecting reproductive rights, ensuring autonomy, or combating workplace discrimination. These judgments emphasize the need for continued progress.