Githa
Hariharan and Ors. v. Reserve Bank of India and Ors.
Hon’ble Judges
1. Dr. A.S.
Anand, CJI.
2. M.
Srinivasan, J.
3. U.C.
Banerjeee, J.
Facts of the case
The Petitioner, Ms. Githa Hariharan, married Dr.
Mohan Ram and they had a son named Rishab born in July 1984. The Petitioner
applied for RBI Relief bonds in the name of her son Rishab, a minor at the time
of application and she signed off as his guardian. A few days later, RBI
rejected the application and asked the petitioner to produce an application
signed off by the natural guardian i.e., Rishab’s Father, or in an alternative,
RBI asked her to produce a certificate of guardianship declaring her as the
natural guardian by the prescribed authority in relevant procedure. RBI also
gave the reasoning behind this rejection, which was; Section 6 (a) of The Hindu
Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 does not allow the mother to be a natural
guardian if the father is alive and as Rishab’s father is alive, only he can
apply for the bonds. After this, Ms. Githa Hariharan decided to take this to
the Supreme Court as she thought this provision was discriminatory and needed
correction.
Issues Raised
1. The
petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of Section 6(a) of the The
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Acy, 1956 which says father is the natural
guardian of a boy or an unmarried girl and after him the mother will
hold guardianship.
2. The
Petitioner wanted to invoke Article 14 and Article 15 to correct this
provision.
SECTION 6 of The Hindu Minority and Guardianship
Act, 1956
6. Natural guardians of a Hindu minor. —The natural
guardians of a Hindu minor; in respect of the minor's person as well as in
respect of the minor’s property (excluding his or her undivided interest in the
joint family property), are—
(a) in the case of a boy or an unmarried
girl—the father, and after him, the mother: provided that the
custody of a minor who has not completed the age of five years shall ordinarily
be with the mother;
(b) in the case of an illegitimate boy or an illegitimate
unmarried girl—the mother, and after her, the father;
(c) in the case of a married girl—the
husband: Provided that no person shall be entitled to act as the natural
guardian of a minor under the provisions of this section—
(a) if he has ceased to be a Hindu, or
(b) if he has completely and finally renounced the
world by becoming a hermit (vanaprastha) or an ascetic (yati or sanyasi).
Explanation. —In this section, the expressions
“father” and “mother” do not include a step-father and a step-mother.
Arguments
The Petitioner, Ms. Githa Hariharan, and her
Counsel argued that the RBI’s recommendation is arbitrary as it is
discriminating, and Article 14 and Article 15 of the Indian Constitution does
not allow this type of discrimination and thereby challenging the
constitutional validity of Section 6(a) of The Hindu Minority and Guardianship
Act, 1956. She argued that the said section is discriminating against women and
put women at a disadvantage concerning guardianship rights related to their own
children.
Judgment
Fundamental Rights holds an important position in
the constitution of India and by no means they must be infringed and right to
equality provided by Article 14 which talks about equality before the law and
equal protection of law and Article 15 which ensures Prohibition of
discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex or place of
birth.The Supreme court also took a close look over the issue raised and upheld
the constitutional validity of Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and
Guardianship Act, 1956, but, while interpreting the word “after” in the
mentioned section it held that both the father and mother are natural guardians
of a minor Hindu child. Mother is not the natural guardian only after the death
of the father as that would be discriminatory and also against the welfare of
the child. Therefore, the Supreme court once again gave utmost importance to
the issue of gender equality.
Conclusion
The intent of the lawmakers was the complete
welfare of children and the Supreme court also used this reasoning while
interpreting the word “after”. This case marks a landmark judgment in matters
of guardianship in India. Fundamental rights give power to gender equality and,
in this case, Article 14 and Article 15 save the day.
References
· The Hindu
Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956
· The
Constitution of India
· Citation:
AIR 1999, 2 SCC 228
·
www.manupatrafast.com/pers/Personalized.aspx
·
www.githahariharan.com
0 Comments