Dr. Justice S. Muralidhar and his contribution towards gender development in India – Four Landmark Judgments

Justice Muralidhar received an iconic farewell on Thursday from Delhi High Court. The Court was bidding adieu to its finest and the dearest Judge. Justice Muralidhar, who has been transferred to the Punjab and Haryana High Court, has served as a judge of the Delhi HC for nearly 14 years and during his tenure, he has delivered some distinguished judgments that had ameliorated the legal landscape of India. He is known as a pro-citizen judge, advocate for voiceless and a white knight who has offered humane jurisprudence to protect the tenets of the constitution of India.

In his farewell speech, he said that

“It is not enough for lawyers and judges to speak about constitutional values. It is essential to imbibe them. The constitutional values of equality, non-discrimination, dignity, the prohibition of untouchability, inclusivity, and plurality have to be practiced continuously at a both personal and a professional level.”

To pay a tribute for his long-standing service before the Delhi High Court, we have curated a list of four judgments passed by Justice Muralidhar to embolden the fight for gender Justice.

1. Decriminalizes homosexuality – The Naz Foundation case (Naz Foundation vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi And others)

Naz Foundation, an NGO working for HIV/AIDS sufferers challenged Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code as unconstitutional. Section 377 entitled “Of Unnatural Offences” has been on the statute books since 1861 and has effectively become a topic for discussion as many feel that it blatantly oppresses and withholds the freedom and choices of a certain minority group. The Delhi high court bench consisting of Chief Justice Ajit Prakash Shah and Justice S Muralidhar while adjudicating the matter said that ‘moral indignation, however strong, is not a valid basis for overriding an individual’s fundamental rights of dignity and privacy. In our scheme of things, constitutional morality must outweigh the argument of public morality, even if it is the ‘majoritarian view’. They decided to strike down section 377, saying it violates the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and equality as enshrined in the Indian constitution. They said that ‘It cannot be forgotten that discrimination is the antithesis of equality and that it is the recognition of equality which will foster the dignity of every individual.’

2. Raises the bar for sexual harassment in workplace cases (Dr. Punitha K Sodhi vs. Union of India and others)

This is a 2010 judgment before the Prevention of Sexual Harassment at Workplace Act, 2013 was enacted and the only rule of law was Vishakha Guidelines. The case delves into various aspects of sexual harassment at the workplace which includes power play, retaliation, defamation, false allegations, institutional prejudice, etc. While judging this matter, Justice Muralidhar introduced a practice wherein which prioritizes the complainant’s perspective over a stereotyped idea of sexual harassment. “If we only examined whether a reasonable person would engage in allegedly harassment conduct, we would run the risk of reinforcing the prevailing level of discrimination….” He further said, “We, therefore, prefer to analyze harassment from the victim’s perspective. A complete understanding of the victim’s view requires…an analysis of the different perspectives of men and women. Conduct that many men consider unobjectionable may offend many women. A male supervisor might believe, for example, that it is legitimate for him to tell a female subordinate that she has a `great figure’ or `nice legs.’ The female subordinate, however, may find such comments offensive.

“Men tend to view some forms of sexual harassment as “harmless social interactions to which only overly-sensitive women would object. The characteristically male view depicts sexual harassment as a comparatively harmless amusement. … Men, who are rarely victims of sexual assault, may view sexual conduct in a vacuum without a full appreciation of the social setting or the underlying threat of violence that a woman may perceive.”

3. A woman’s right to choose – (Dr. Sangamitra Acharya & Anr. vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Ors)

In this landmark judgment, a bench comprising of Justices S Muralidhar and C Hari Shankar of the Delhi high court, among other things, contemplated on the rights of an unmarried adult woman. In the present case, Z had been learning Hindu classical music from the petitioner and was deeply interested in pursuing a career in classical music. As Z was unable to get along with her parents and her brother, she voluntarily moved in with the petitioners when she was 18. However, she is forcibly taken away to a mental hospital by her parents with the help of local police as they believe that she is under the influence of the petitioner. While determining the legal issues, the bench held that her parents are under a mistaken assumption that in case of a daughter, she remains dependent on her parents till she gets married, irrespective of the fact that whether she has attained the majority or not. “This mistaken notion forms the basis upon which they have taken it upon themselves to make Z’s choices for her notwithstanding that Z, having attained the age of majority, can exercise her free will uninfluenced by what her parents might feel or think.’ The bench held that Z’s parents had violated her fundamental rights to life, liberty, privacy, and dignity.

4. Reproductive health matters – (Laxmi Mandal v. Deen Dayal Harinagar Hospital and Others)

The struggle for reproductive self-determination has specific significance for women and girls in India, where a maternal death occurs every five minutes. This case was brought on behalf of Shanti Devi, a woman living in poverty from a Scheduled Caste after she died as the result of being refused adequate maternal healthcare even though she qualified for the free services under existing state-sponsored schemes. While delivering the judgment, Justice Muralidhar emphasized that the Indian Government is obligated to ensure maternal health services under the judicially- recognized constitutional rights to health and reproductive rights. Drawing on international law Justice Muralidhar underlined that women have the right to control their bodies and decide when they wish to conceive. The Court also pointed out that women carry the burden of poverty in that they have to prove their BPL status when trying to access health facilities and accordingly ordered that

“No pregnant women be denied access to medical treatment regardless of her social-economical status”.

– Justice Muralidhar