Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
There is gender discrimination lurking at all corners of the country. The Himachal Pradesh High Court took a progressive stance on this, on the eve of Independence Day. It produced a Landmark Judgment by quashing an age old policy of the state government depriving reservation in government jobs to the married daughters and grand daughters of freedom fighters. The division bench was headed by Acting Chief Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Sandeep Sharma. They held a highly progressive judgment that said, the state shall not discriminate against the married daughters or grand daughters of freedom fighters in reserving government job posts, a treatment that is not meted out to the sons regardless of their marital status.
The backdrop against which the High Court gave an order was that in 1984, the State Government took a decision of extending a 2% reservation for the posts of state offices, to sons and daughters, grandsons and granddaughters of freedom fighters hailing from the state. The category that was excluded from this included married daughters and grand daughters. This according to the laws of modernity clearly stands against the ends of justice. This was the very reason why a duo motu writ petition was registered after receiving letters from Rekha Sharma and Geeta Sharma, daughters of late Shri Get Ram Sharma, a freedom fighter. It was via the amicus curiae Advocate Deven Khanna that this violating policy was brought into the High Court's ambit of notice.
There were immensely poignant and valid questions put forth. It was contended that this policy of the state is clearly patriarchal and gender biased and that if there is no exclusion hurled at married sons, why should the same be meted to married daughters. The State justified that once a woman is married she forgoes her former ties and gets 'transplanted' in her new matrimonial home. The “woman loses the status of being a member of the parent’s family though married daughter/grand daughters after marriage do not lose status of member of undivided family of her father for the purpose of property”
The Court held that the predominant mindset of male chauvinism is all pervading. The bench said that this kind of policy is not in tune or in sync with the changing times and Constitutional values and policy. The bench further said that the purpose of the policy is to honour the sacrifices of the freedom fighters by employing their wards and there is therefore no reason why this discrimination must be upheld. The Apex Court referred to various other judgments and took a position that the marital status of a woman should not have anything to do with her identity as an individual. The Acting Chief Justice conclusively this remarked that it is no way open to the State to act in contradiction to articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution while discriminating against the married daughters and granddaughters. He further explained, “ Freedom fighters fought for the nation and we celebrate the Independence Day to remember them and their selfless sacrifice. Although we have got freedom from our colonial masters, we are yet fighting for getting freedom from many discriminations, predominantly discriminations based on gender”.
86540
103860
630
114
59824