Explore 25 landmark judgments by Indian courts that have significantly shaped and advanced women’s rights, promoting equality, dignity, and empowerment over the years.
NEW DELHI: On the occasion of International Women’s Day, we take a moment to reflect on the transformative role played by the Supreme Court of India in advancing and safeguarding the rights of women across the nation.
Through a series of landmark judgments, the Supreme Court has persistently upheld the principles of equality, dignity, and non-discrimination, addressing critical issues such as workplace rights, personal autonomy, protection from violence, and access to justice. These judgments have not only shaped the legal landscape but have also strengthened the social fabric by ensuring a more inclusive and equitable future for women.
As we celebrate the remarkable contributions of women around the world, we revisit some of the most significant judgments delivered by the Supreme Court that have propelled the cause of women’s empowerment and strengthened their constitutional rights.
CB Muthamma v. Union of India and Others (1979)
Justices VR Krishna Iyer and PN Shingal
This case marked a critical moment in the fight against gender discrimination within public employment. CB Muthamma, the first woman to join the Indian Foreign Service, challenged the discriminatory provisions under the Indian Foreign Service (Conduct and Discipline) Rules, 1961, which imposed restrictions on women officers regarding promotions, foreign postings, and continuation of service post-marriage.
The Supreme Court held that these rules were in clear violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, emphasizing that gender could not form the basis of differential treatment in employment. This judgment was a milestone in advancing equal opportunities for women in government service.
Air India v. Nargesh Mirza (1981)
Justices Syed Murtaza Fazlali, A Varadarajan, AP Sen
This case centered around the discriminatory employment conditions imposed by Air India, which required air hostesses to resign upon marriage, retire at the age of 35, or leave upon their first pregnancy. Nargesh Mirza, an air hostess, challenged these policies, which were unjustifiably harsh on women employees.
The Supreme Court held that
“these service conditions were arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of the fundamental right to equality“
The Court reinforced the principle of non-discrimination in employment and laid the groundwork for protecting the rights of women in the workplace.
Mary Roy and Others v. State of Kerala and Others (1986)
Chief Justice PN Bhagwati and Justice RS Pathak
This case addressed discriminatory inheritance laws under the Travancore Christian Succession Act, 1916, which granted women only a fractional share in property as compared to men. Activist Mary Roy challenged the Act, advocating for equal property rights for Christian women in Kerala.
The Supreme Court declared the
“provisions unconstitutional, affirming that women were entitled to an equal share in their father’s property“
This landmark judgment significantly advanced property rights for women, reinforcing the principles of gender equality and non-discrimination.
State of Maharashtra and Another v. Madhukar Narayan Mardikar (1991)
Justices K Jagannatha Shetty and AM Ahmadi
In this case, a police inspector was accused of attempting to rape a woman who was alleged to have a questionable reputation. The High Court quashed his dismissal, citing the woman’s reputation as unreliable for evidence.
The Supreme Court overturned this decision, holding that the right to privacy and bodily integrity applies to every woman, regardless of her background or reputation. It emphasized that even a
woman of “easy virtue” is entitled to equal protection under the law and that her testimony could not be disregarded on the basis of her social standing
Neera Mathur v. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Another (1991)
Justices K Jagannath Shetty and Yogeshwar Dayal
Neera Mathur, an employee of LIC, was dismissed from her job for not disclosing her pregnancy on the employment declaration form. She approached the Supreme Court, claiming that the termination was discriminatory and humiliating.
The Supreme Court ruled in her favor, holding that such intrusive and irrelevant questions regarding a woman’s personal health were unconstitutional and violative of Article 14. It recommended the removal of such declarations from employment forms, ensuring dignity and privacy for women in the workplace.
Vishaka and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Others (1997)
Chief Justice JS Verma, Justices Sujata V Manohar, and BN Kirpal
This landmark case stemmed from the gang-rape of a social worker in Rajasthan, prompting women’s rights groups to approach the Supreme Court for legal safeguards against sexual harassment in workplaces.
The Supreme Court laid down comprehensive guidelines to prevent and address sexual harassment at workplaces, known as the Vishaka Guidelines. The Court held that such harassment violated a woman’s fundamental rights to equality, dignity, and a safe working environment under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution. This judgment eventually led to the enactment of the POSH Act, 2013.
Githa Hariharan and Another v. Reserve Bank of India and Another (1999)
Chief Justice AS Anand, Justices M Srinivasan, and UC Banerjee
This case challenged the provisions of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, which designated the father as the sole natural guardian of a minor child, excluding the mother unless the father was unfit.
The Supreme Court held that both parents have equal rights and duties concerning the guardianship of their children. It reaffirmed the principle of gender equality in parental rights, emphasizing that the mother must also be recognized as a natural guardian.
Mohd Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum & Others (1985)
Chief Justice YV Chandrachud and Justices Ranganath Misra, DA Desai, O Chinnappa, and ES Venkataramaiah
This landmark judgment upheld the
“right of a divorced Muslim woman, Shah Bano, to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC”
Despite religious opposition, the Court held
that a Muslim husband is obligated to provide maintenance beyond the iddat period if his former wife was unable to sustain herself.
The judgment strengthened the position of divorced Muslim women by emphasizing their constitutional right to maintenance, irrespective of personal laws.
Anuj Garg and Others v. Hotel Association of India and Others (2007)
Justices SB Sinha and Harjit Singh Bedi
The Court addressed the
“discriminatory provision under Section 30 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, which prohibited the employment of women in establishments serving liquor“
The Supreme Court declared the provision unconstitutional, stating that employment opportunities for women cannot be denied on grounds of morality or protectionism. The judgment emphasized gender-neutral employment opportunities and equal treatment under the law.
Suchita Srivastava and Another v. Chandigarh Administration (2009)
Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan and Justices BS Chauhan and P Sathasivam
This case involved the
“right of a woman to terminate her pregnancy under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971”
The Supreme Court held that the decision to terminate a pregnancy falls within a woman’s right to privacy and autonomy under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The judgment reinforced the notion that reproductive choices are a part of a woman’s fundamental rights.
Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018)
[Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Rohinton Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud, and Indu Malhotra]
In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court decriminalized adultery under Section 497 IPC, stating that the law treated women as property of their husbands and violated their dignity.
The Court held that the provision was unconstitutional as it perpetuated gender inequality and denied women their autonomy, reinforcing the principle of equal dignity under Article 21.
Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya and Others (2020)
[Justices DY Chandrachud and Ajay Rastogi]
The Supreme Court addressed gender-based discrimination in the Indian Army, where women were denied Permanent Commission.
The Court held that the policy of restricting women to short service commission roles violated their right to equality under Article 14. It directed the government to ensure that women officers were given the same opportunities for command and service as their male counterparts.
Aparna Bhat and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (2021)
[Justices: AM Khanwilkar and S Ravindra Bhat]
In this case, the Supreme Court strongly criticized the Madhya Pradesh High Court for imposing an arbitrary and inappropriate condition for granting bail to an accused of sexual assault. The High Court had directed the accused to get a Rakhi tied on him by the victim, symbolizing him as her brother, as a condition for bail.
The Supreme Court, while setting aside the condition, held that such directions trivialize the gravity of sexual offenses and reinforce gender stereotypes. The Court issued seven important directions to judicial officers, emphasizing the need to uphold the dignity of victims in such sensitive cases.
Hotel Priya, A Proprietorship v. State of Maharashtra and Others (2022)
[Justices: KM Joseph and S Ravindra Bhat]
In this case, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the gender-based restriction imposed by the Mumbai Police on the number of female performers in orchestras and bands in licensed bars.
The Court held that while the overall number of performers in any given performance could be capped at eight, the gender composition of the performers must not be restricted or regulated. The judgment emphasized that such restrictions are rooted in gender-based stereotypes and violate the fundamental rights of equality and freedom under the Constitution.
Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Tyagi (2022)
[Justices: MR Shah and BV Nagarathna]
The Supreme Court in this case held that every woman in a domestic relationship has a statutory right to reside in the shared household of her husband even after his death.
It was further clarified that a woman can enforce this right irrespective of whether she actually lived in the shared household before or not. The Court also interpreted the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, to ensure that women in domestic relationships are adequately protected, even after the death of their spouses.
Arunachala Gounder (Dead) by LRs v. Ponnusamy and Others (2022)
[Justices: S Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari]
The Supreme Court in this case reaffirmed the rights of daughters in inheriting the self-acquired or family property of a male Hindu who dies intestate (without a will). The Court held that such property would devolve by inheritance and not by survivorship, ensuring that daughters have an equal right to inherit the property in preference to other male collaterals.
The judgment emphasized that ancient religious texts and judicial pronouncements had long recognized the inheritance rights of female heirs, including daughters and wives.
State of Jharkhand v. Shailendra Kumar Rai and Others (2022)
[Justices: DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli]
The Supreme Court in this case declared the archaic practice of conducting the “two-finger test” on victims of rape or sexual assault as unconstitutional and illegal. The Court held that any person found conducting this test would be guilty of misconduct.
The Court also directed a review of medical school curricula to ensure that the two-finger test is not taught as a standard medical practice for examining survivors of sexual assault. It reiterated that such practices have no scientific validity and cause retraumatization of the victims.
Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal (2022)
[Justices: DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna]
In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that a woman’s statutory right to avail maternity leave cannot be denied on the ground that she had previously availed child care leave for her non-biological children.
The Court emphasized that maternity leave is a statutory right aimed at encouraging women to join and continue in the workplace. It further held that a purposive interpretation of the Maternity Benefit Act and the Central Civil Services Rules (CCS Rules) was necessary to ensure equal employment opportunities for women.
Akella Lalitha v. Konda Rao and Others (2022)
[Justices: Dinesh Maheshwari and Krishna Murari]
The Supreme Court, in this case, held that a mother, as the natural guardian of her child, has the sole right to decide the child’s surname and even give the child up for adoption. The Court set aside an Andhra Pradesh High Court order that had directed a mother, who had remarried after her first husband’s death, to restore her child’s original surname.
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court’s direction was arbitrary, cruel, and failed to consider the mother’s rights and her role as a natural guardian.
Kamla Neti (Dead) through LRs v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer and Others (2022)
[Justices: MR Shah and Krishna Murari]
The Supreme Court in this case urged the Central Government to amend Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which excludes female members of Scheduled Tribes from its purview. The Court expressed concern that such exclusion continues to deny the right of survivorship to women belonging to Scheduled Tribes.
The Court emphasized that even after seven decades of independence, denying equal property rights to women from Scheduled Tribes was unconstitutional and discriminatory.
X v. The Principal Secretary Health and Family Welfare Department, Delhi NCT Government and Another (2022)
[Justices: DY Chandrachud, AS Bopanna, and JB Pardiwala]
In this case, the Supreme Court held that unmarried women are also entitled to seek medical termination of pregnancy (abortion) beyond 20 weeks and up to 24 weeks under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act.
The Court ruled that denying the right of abortion to unmarried women in consensual relationships while allowing it for married women violates Article 14 of the Constitution. It was held that the scope of the MTP Act must be interpreted liberally to uphold reproductive rights.
Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa and Others (2023)
[Justices: AS Bopanna and Hima Kohli]
The Supreme Court expressed serious concern over the poor implementation of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act). It noted that even after a decade of the Act’s enactment, many public and private organizations, including sports federations, had failed to establish Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs) as mandated by the Act.
The Court emphasized the importance of implementing the POSH Act in both letter and spirit and directed the Central and State Governments to take concrete measures to ensure compliance with the Act to protect women from workplace harassment.
In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescent
Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
The Supreme Court, in suo motu cognizance of the Calcutta High Court’s decision in Probhat Purkait v. State of W.B., (2023) 1 HCC (Cal) 626, set aside the High Court’s ruling that issued a series of advisories to male and female adolescents regarding the respect, dignity, and autonomy of a woman’s body.
The High Court, while hearing an appeal against the Special Judge’s conviction order under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, had observed that a male adolescent must respect a woman’s dignity and privacy, while a female adolescent must control her sexual urges as, in the eyes of society, she would be considered the “loser” if she engaged in sexual pleasure.
The Supreme Court condemned such remarks as regressive and violative of a woman’s right to dignity and autonomy under Article 21 of the Constitution. It further held that the High Court’s approach in issuing gender-biased advisories was contrary to constitutional principles.
X v. Y (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 197)
Bench: Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Justice Augustine George Masih
The Supreme Court held that
“referring to a woman who is a party to a void marriage as an “illegitimate wife” or “faithful mistress” is derogatory, misogynistic, and violative of her fundamental right to dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution“
The Court emphasized that under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), a spouse from a void marriage is entitled to claim permanent alimony and maintenance. The Bench criticized the language used in the Bombay High Court’s decision in Bhausaheb @ Sandhu v. Leelabai (2004), stating that describing a woman as a “faithful mistress” or “illegitimate wife” affects her dignity and is against constitutional ethos.
Sarita Choudhary v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Another (2025)
(Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh)
The Court emphasized that merely increasing the number of female Judicial Officers is insufficient if a sensitive work environment and proper guidance are not ensured.
The Court observed that the High Court had erred in disregarding critical considerations such as allegations of insubordination against Sarita Choudhary and the severe medical and emotional challenges faced by Aditi Kumar Sharma, who had recently suffered from a miscarriage and severe COVID-19.The Bench reaffirmed that while
“gender is not a defense for poor performance, it must be factored in for holistic decision-making in certain circumstances”
. It further emphasized
“the significance of women’s representation in the judiciary, stating that it promotes gender equality, challenges stereotypes, and increases women’s willingness to seek justice“
Recognizing the transformative constitutional intent, the Court highlighted
“need to protect women’s employment rights during pregnancy and maternity”
Maatr Sparsh An Initiative By Avyaan Foundation v. Union of India & Ors (2025)
(Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Prasanna B. Varale)
The apex court held that
” nursing mothers have the right to breast-feed their children, and the State has a duty to facilitate this right by ensuring the availability of feeding rooms, crèche, and child-care facilities in public places”
The Court emphasized that
“breastfeeding is integral to a child’s right to life under Article 21, and since a child’s right to be breast-fed is linked with the mother, she also has the right to breast-feed without stigma or inconvenience”
Referring to Article 51A(e), the Court reminded citizens of their duty to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women. Additionally, the Court directed the Union of India to issue a reminder communication to all States/Union Territories to implement feeding and child-care facilities in public buildings, ensuring privacy and comfort for nursing mothers, thereby promoting gender equality and protecting maternal and child rights.
READ MORE REPORTS ON WOMEN RIGHTS
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE