Women
Women
Women
2. Key Provisions:
• Prohibition of sex selection: The Act prohibits any kind of sex selection or
determination before or after conception.
3. Regulatory Mechanisms:
• The Act establishes Appropriate Authorities at both state and district levels to
implement and monitor compliance.
5. Challenges:
Despite the Act, female foeticide and skewed sex ratios persist in certain parts of
India due to cultural preferences for male children. Poor enforcement and the
clandestine nature of violations are significant hurdles.
2. Key Provisions:
3. Enforcement Mechanism:
• The Act authorizes police officers to seize any materials that are in violation of
its provisions.
4. Judicial Interpretation:
The Act has been criticized for its vague definition of “indecent representation,”
which can be subject to varying interpretations, thus limiting its effectiveness.
Moreover, with the rise of digital media, enforcement has become more complex.
6. Proposed Amendments:
In 2012, amendments were proposed to widen the scope of the Act, including
addressing indecent representation in electronic and digital media, and increasing
penalties to strengthen enforcement.
1. Background:
The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013, was enacted following
the landmark Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) case, where the Supreme
Court laid down guidelines to prevent sexual harassment at the workplace,
commonly known as the Vishaka Guidelines.
The Act defines sexual harassment broadly to include physical contact, unwelcome
advances, sexually colored remarks, showing pornography, or any other
unwelcome physical, verbal, or non-verbal conduct of a sexual nature.
3. Key Provisions:
• Time-bound Inquiry: The ICC must complete the inquiry within 90 days, and
the report must be submitted to the employer or district officer within 10 days
after the inquiry concludes.
4. Redressal Mechanism:
• If the ICC finds that the allegations are proven, it recommends actions like
written apologies, reprimands, or termination of employment. Compensation
may also be awarded to the aggrieved woman.
In Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India (2013), the Supreme Court reinforced the
need for proper implementation of the Vishaka Guidelines and directed state
governments to ensure the constitution of ICCs at workplaces.
6. Challenges:
There is often poor awareness and implementation of the Act, especially in small and
unorganized sectors. Fear of retaliation and victim-blaming further deter women
from reporting harassment.
The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (ITPA), also known as the SITA Act,
was amended in 1986 to combat human trafficking and prostitution. The Act
focuses on the prevention of trafficking for commercial sexual exploitation and
provides for rehabilitation of the victims.
2. Key Provisions:
• Protection of minors: Special provisions exist for the protection of minors and
the rescue of children and women trafficked for sexual exploitation.
• The Act provides for the establishment of Protective Homes for the
rehabilitation of victims of trafficking and prostitution.
4. Judicial Interpretation:
In Gaurav Jain v. Union of India (1997), the Supreme Court stressed the need for
rehabilitation measures for women involved in prostitution and highlighted the
role of society in assisting their reintegration.
5. Challenges:
6. Proposed Reforms:
There have been calls to shift the focus of the law from criminalizing sex work to
addressing the root causes of trafficking and strengthening the rehabilitation
framework for victims.
The Family Courts Act, 1984, aims to establish family courts for the speedy
resolution of disputes relating to marriage, divorce, child custody, and other
family matters. The Act intends to provide a less formal and more conciliatory
environment for family dispute resolution.
• Family courts are set up by state governments in consultation with the High
Court. These courts are to be established in cities or areas with populations
exceeding one million.
• Judges of family courts are required to have experience in family law and are
encouraged to take a conciliatory approach to dispute resolution.
3. Jurisdiction:
Family courts have jurisdiction over cases related to marriage, divorce, maintenance,
child custody, and guardianship. They can also hear matters concerning the
property of spouses and issues under personal laws (Hindu, Muslim, Christian,
etc.).
4. Procedure:
The procedure in family courts is less formal than in regular courts, with an emphasis
on conciliation. Parties are encouraged to settle disputes amicably, and legal
representation is minimized unless required for justice.
5. Judicial Interpretation:
In K.A. Abdul Jaleel v. T.A. Shahida (2003), the Supreme Court emphasized that
family courts must prioritize reconciliation efforts and promote the settlement of
disputes. The case also underlined the importance of making family courts
accessible and efficient.
6. Challenges:
Family courts in India often face logistical issues such as delays, lack of adequate
infrastructure, and backlog of cases. The emphasis on conciliation sometimes
conflicts with the interests of women seeking justice in cases of domestic
violence or abuse.
These notes provide an overview of key laws related to gender justice and family
welfare in India, touching on legislative intent, key provisions, judicial
interventions, and ongoing challenges for each law.