Today, On 9th July, The Supreme Court dismissed a petition challenging a gender discriminatory provision in the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), following the resolution of the grievance by BNSS. The court acknowledged that the issue had been satisfactorily addressed, leading to the closure of the case.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court, On Tuesday, closed a petition that challenged a gender-discriminatory provision in the 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Court noted that the issue addressed in the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023.
The petition objected to Section 64 of the CrPC, which permitted summons to be served only to adult male family members if the person summoned was unavailable. This provision criticized for discriminating against women and violating constitutional rights to equality, information, and dignity.
Attorney General R. Venkataramani informed the Court that the corresponding provision in the BNSS (Section 66) removed the gender-specific language, allowing any adult family member to receive summons.
The bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, recognized that the new legislation addresses the grievance raised in the petition. As a result, the Court deemed the petition infructuous and closed it.
This development represents a significant step towards gender equality in legal procedures. The removal of gender-specific language in the new law acknowledges the competence of all adult family members, regardless of gender, in legal matters. It also addresses practical concerns, such as situations where only female family members are present to receive summons.
According to the petition, the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) of 1908 mandated that summons could be served to any adult member of the defendant’s family, irrespective of gender.
Read Also: BNSS Mandates Forensic Analysis, Puts Pressure on Centre and State Labs: Cal HC
However, the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), introduced 65 years later, is described as “anarchic and dogmatic.”
The petition highlights that,
“Cr.P.C. does not consider an adult female member of the family capable and competent to receive summons.”
The petitioner argued that the practice of excluding female family members from receiving summons on behalf of the summoned individual infringes upon women’s rights to equality as guaranteed by Articles 14 and 15, the right to information under Article 19(1)(a), and the right to dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
