International Research Journal of Commerce , Arts and Science

 ( Online- ISSN 2319 - 9202 )     New DOI : 10.32804/CASIRJ

Impact Factor* - 6.2311


**Need Help in Content editing, Data Analysis.

Research Gateway

Adv For Editing Content

   No of Download : 50    Submit Your Rating     Cite This   Download        Certificate

CONSTITUTIONAL FEMINISM

    1 Author(s):  MRS. KAVITA DHULL

Vol -  1, Issue- 1 ,         Page(s) : 195 - 203  (2010 ) DOI : https://doi.org/10.32804/CASIRJ

Abstract

The role of constitutions in ensuring gender justice is being recognized in modern times. It is most appropriate that the supreme law of the land should meaningfully address the woman question and respond to the challenges by stimulating the whole legal system towards a greater concern for, and protection of women.

1. Clare Dalton, (1987) 3 Burkeley Women's Law Journal 1, cited by M.D.A. Freeman, Lloyd's Introduction to Jurisprudence, London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1996, p. 1028. 
2. For similar reasoning in the context of Articles 16(4) and 15(4) see Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, 7 (1999) SLT 476; C.A. Rajendran v. Union of India, (1968) 1 SCR 721. 
3. Article 51A(e). 
4. See Tracy Higgins, "Democracy and Feminism" 110, Harv. L. Rev. 1657 at 1676-1685. 
5. Catherine A. Mackinnon, Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law, 1987, Harvard University Press extracted in M.D.A. Freeman, supra n.1, p. 1087. 
6. Raghuban v. State of Punjab, AIR 1972 P&H 117 where such rule was upheld on this reasoning. 
7. Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, (1981) 1 SCC 608 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 212. 
8. Granville Austin, Working a Democratic Constitution, New Delhi: Oxford University Press (1999) p. 669. 
9. Articles 39(a) to (f), 42, 43, 44, 45, 47 and 51. 
10. Nilima Priyadarshini v. State of Bihar, 1987 Supp SCC 732 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 138 and 1989 Supp (1) SCC 336 : 1989 SCC (Cri) 436. But see Vidya Verma v. Dr Shiv Narain Verma, AIR 1956 SC 108, wherein the Supreme Court observed that detention of a woman by a private person is not remediable under Article 21. This was based on an approach, it is submitted erroneous, that Article 21 provides for a right only against state, and not against individual. In fact, material facts of the case did not point out detention but an attempt to abuse the process of writ of habeas corpus. Hence the observation was obiter dicta. 
11. Indian Express, 4th Feb. 1994 (Bangalore ed.). 
12. (1996) 3 SCJ 592. 
13. (1997) 6 SCC 241. 
14. Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra, (1999) 1 SCC 759. 
15. Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty, (1996) 1 SCC 490 at 500. 
16. Ibid at 500. 
17. State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384. 
18. State of Maharashtra v. C.K. Jain, (1990) 1 SCC 550. 
19. State of Haryana v. Prem Chand, (1990) 1 SCC 249. 
20. Delhi Domestic Working Women's Forum v. Union of India, (1995) 1 SCC 14. 
21. (1996) 1 SCC 490. 
22. Gaurav Jain v. Union of India, (1997) 8 SCC 114 at 119. 
23. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248. 
24. Joint Women's Programme v. State of Rajasthan, 1987 Supp SCC 707. 
25. State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992) 2 SCC 86 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 241; State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh, (1991) 3 SCC 1 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 513. 
26. Paniben v. State of Gujarat, (1992) 2 SCC 474 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 403. 
27. Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani, (1978) 2 SCC 424. 
28. D.K. Basu v. State of W.B., (1997) 1 SCC 416. 
29. Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra, (1983) 2 SCC 96. 
30. Upendra Baxi v. State of U.P., (1983) 2 SCC 308. 
31. Air India v. Nergesh Mirza, (1981) 4 SCC 335. 
32. Neera Mathur v. LIC, (1992) 1 SCC 286. 
33. State of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Narayan, (1991) 1 SCC 57. 
34. T. Sareetha v. T. Venkatasubbaiah, AIR 1983 AP 356. 
35. Harvinder Kaur v. Harmandil Singh, AIR 1984 Del 66. 
36. (1984) 4 SCC 90. 
37. (1996) 5 SCC 125. 
38. Ibid at 1884. 
39. See Ratna Kapur and Brenda Cossman, 'On Women, Equality and the Constitution: Through the looking glass of feminism' (1993) 1, NLSJ 1. 
40. Raghuban v. State of Punjab, AIR 1972 P&H 117. 
41. Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1974 P&H 162; Nalini Ranjan v. State of Bihar, AIR 1977 Pat 171. 
42. Shahbad v. Abdullah, AIR 1967 J&K 120 
43. Yusuf Abdul Aziz v. State of Bombay, AIR 1954 SC 321; Sowmithri Vishnu v. Union of India, 1985 Supp SCC 137. 
44. (1995) 4 SCC 520 at 525. 
45. Ammini E.J. v. Union of India, AIR 1995 Ker 252 at 268; Pragathi Verghese v. Cyril George, AIR 1997 Bom 349. 
46. Githal Hariharan v. RBI, (1999) 2 SCC 228.

*Contents are provided by Authors of articles. Please contact us if you having any query.






Bank Details