Published on 5th April 2025
Authored By: Jay Laxmi Shukla
United University
ABOUT THE CASE
CITATION : 1979 AIR 1868 1980 SCR (1) 668 1979 SCC (4) 260
CASE NO: Writ Petition No. 743 of 1979
PETITIONER: C. B. MUTHAMMA
RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 17 September, 1979
BENCH : V.R. Krishnaiyer, P.N. Shingal
INTRODUCTION
In C.B. Muthamma v. Union of India and Others, 66 the supplicant, a successful seeker in the Indian Foreign Service, was refused appointment because she was married. The rules of the Indian Foreign Service, proscribing the appointment of wedded women, and taking that unattached women In the employment of the Foreign Service gain authorization before marrying, were challenged
FACT OF THE CASE
The data of the case similar that, the supplicant, a elderly member of the Indian Foreign. Service complained that she had been denied creation to Grade off the Indian Foreign Service on unreasonable and gender discriminative grounds.
The supplicant further challenged two rules namely 8( 2) of Indian Foreign Service( Conduct and Discipline) Rules 1961 and Rule 18( 4) of the Indian Foreign Service( Reclamation, Cadre Seniority and Promotion) Rules 1961, which in short countries that a woman member of the service shall gain authorization in jotting of the Government before marriage and the Women member may be needed to abdicate any time after marriage if the Government is satisfied that her family and domestic commitments will hinder her duties member of the service and under the alternate rule no wedded woman shall be entitled as of right to be appointed to the service. The supplicant’s remaining grievance is that during the interval of some months between her first evaluation and the alternate, some officers inferior to her, have gone above her and her career would be affected.
ISSUES
The issues raised by the complainant can be streamlined into a many enterprises.
- The complainant was denied equivalency before the law;
- The complainant was discerned on the base of coitus.
- On the base of employment, the complainant was treated indifferently due to her coitus.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Constitution of India
- Article 14 (equality before the law)
- Article 16 (equality of opportunity in matters of public employment)
ARGUMENTS OF PARTIES
Miss Muthamma, the petitioner complains that she had been denied creation to Grade I of the Indian Foreign Service immorally and unconstitutionally. She deplored that, to quote her own words; “ One of the reasons for the supplicant’s supersession is the long standing practice of hostile demarcation against women. Indeed at the veritably threshold when the supplicant good for the Union Public Services at the time of her interview, the Chairman of the U.P.S.C. tried to convert( inhibit) the supplicant from joining the Foreign Service. On posterior occasion he tête-à-tête informed the Petitioner that he’d used his influence as Chairman to give minimal marks in the viva. As the time of entry into the Foreign Service, the petitioner had also to give an undertaking that if she were to get married she’d abdicate from the service.”
That on multitudinous occasions the supplicant had to face the consequences of being a woman and therefore suffered demarcation though the Constitution specifically under Composition 15 prohibits demarcation on grounds of religion, race, estate, coitus or place of birth and Composition 14 of the Constitution provides the principles of equivalency before law. That members of the movables Committee of the Union Cabinet and the replier No. 2 are principally poisoned against women as a group. The Prime Minister of India has been reported in the Press as having stated it would not be inapplicable then to mention that utmost of the women who are in the service at elderly situations are being veritably totally named for posts which have traditionally been assigned a veritably low precedence by the Ministry. ”
RATIONALE BEHIND JUDGEMENT
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA IYER, J. This writ solicitation by Miss Muthamma, a elderly member of the Indian Foreign Service, bespeaks a story which makes one wonder whether Articles 14 and 16 belong to myth or reality. The credibility of indigenous authorizations shall not be shaken by governmental action or inactivity but it’s the effect of the grievance of Miss Muthamma that coitus prejudice against Indian womanises pervades the service rules indeed a third of a century after Freedom. There’s some base for the charge of bias in the rules and this makes the portentous incuriosity of the superintendent to bring about the expulsion of demarcation in the heritage of service rules.However, the legal lot of the little Indian, formerly priced out of the precious judicial request, If high officers lose expedients of equal justice under the rules. This disturbing study induces us to make a many compliances about the two impugned rules which appear prima facie, discriminative against the lady of the species in public service and have unexpectedly survived so long, presumably, because retainers of governments are hysterical to challenge unconstitutional rule making by the Administration.
Demarcation against women, in traumatic translucency, is set up in this rule. However, the same threat is run by government if a manly member contracts a marriage, If a woman member shall gain the authorization of government before she marries. However, a analogous situation may well arise in the case of a manly member, If the family and domestic commitments of a woman member of the Service is likely to come in the way of effective discharge of duties. In these days of nuclear families,inter-continental marriages and unconventional geste, one fails to understand the naked bias against the gentler of the species. Rule 18 of the Indian Foreign Service (Recruitment Cadre, Seniority and Promotion) Rules, 1961, run in the same prejudicial strain.
4) No wedded woman shall be entitled as of right to be appointed to the service. ”
The supplicant has, after the institution of this proceeding, been promoted. Is it a case of post hoc ergo propter hoc? Where justice has been done, further inquiry is futile. The Central Government states that although the supplicant was n’t set up meritorious enough for creation some months agone, she has been set up to be good now, has been upgraded and appointed as Ambassador of India to the Hague, for what it’s worth. Her surviving grievance is only one. During the interval of some months between her first evaluation and the alternate, some officers inferior to her have gone above her. In the rat race of Indian sanctioned life, senility appears to be acquiring a religious reverence. Since the career ahead of the supplicant may well be affected by the factum of previous birth into Grade I of the Service, her grievance turning on senility can not be brushed away. Her case, with particular focus on senility, deserves review vis-a-vis those inferior to her who have been promoted in the interval of some months. The sense of injustice rankles and should be cancelled so that every menial in strategic position gives of his or her stylish to the country. We’ve had the advantage of the presence of the learned Solicitor- General, appearing for the Union of India. With characteristic fairness he has converted his customer to agree to what we regard as a just gesture, viz., that the Respondent- Union of India will shortly review the senility of the supplicant, her merit having been discovered and her senility to Grade II being recognised. We direct consequently.
HOLDING
The Supreme Court held If a woman member shall gain authorization of government before she marries, the same threat Is run by government if a manly member contracts a marriage. However, a analogous situation may well arise in the case of a manly member, If the family and domestic commitments Of a woman member of the Service is doubtful to come in the way of effective discharge of duties. In these days of nuclear families, Intercontinental marriages and unconventional geste, one fails to understand the naked bias against The gentler of the species. The Court held that although the rule is discriminative, the operation Should be dismissed in light of the posterior creation of the supplicant. Still, the Court Concluded by explosively prompting the Government to “ overhaul all Service Rules to remove the stain of coitus Demarcation. The Court espoused a formal approach to equivalency, and a sameness approach to gender. For the Purposes of employment in the Foreign Service, women and men are to be considered the same. According to the Court, women and men must both balance the demands of work and family. Women And men must thus be treated the same in law. Still, the Court is conservative in its relinquishment Of this sameness approach, and in fact, goes on to limit its connection We do n’t mean to universalise or dogmatise that men and women are equal in all occupations and all situations and do n’t count the need to pragmatise where the conditions of particular employment, the perceptivity of coitus or the peculiarity of societal sectors or the debits of either coitus may impel selectivity.The sameness approach is therefore expressly limited to the particular circumstances of the particular Case. The Court leaves open the possibility of espousing an approach which recognises differences. Indeed, the converse of the decision suggests an underpinning protectionism. The references to women as “ the gentler of the species ”, suggests that the Court does see women as different, as weaker, and as in need of protection. Indeed, the recreating references to women as “ the weaker ” and “ the gentler ” coitus reinforces images of women as weak, and in need of protection.70
FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Though the solicitation in this case was dismissed, the judgment served as a precedent in multitudinous other situations of gender demarcation that further arose and were brought forth in front of the bar. Some similar cases were
In Air India v. Nergesh Meerza
Service Regulation 46 handed that air visitant would retire from the services of the Corporation upon attaining the age of 35 times or on marriage, if it took place within four times of service, or on first gestation, whichever passed before. Under regulation 47, Managing Director was vested with absolute discretion to extend the age of withdrawal until the hand attains 45 times.
Justice Fazal Ali “ It seems to us that the termination of the service of an air visitant under similar circumstances is n’t only a callous and cruel act but an open personality to Indian womanises ”. “ why should be a woman be punished for bearing a child and be made to give up her job? ” the court queried ‘ thus, if some disqualifications are attached to the condition of being a woman, it amounts to demarcation which is in violation of Composition 14’ In 1986 another solicitation came before the Court of law questioning the profitable independence of a women.
Maya Devi v. State of Maharashtra
Court emphasized the significance of profitable independence of women, in prostrating traditional disadvantages. The demand that married women gain their hubby’s concurrence before applying for public employment was successfully challenged as a violation of Articles 14. 15 and 16.
CONCLUSION
In the words of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, you can tell the condition of a nation by looking At the status of its women . This case proved to be an eye- nature for the bar on the gender bias that takes place in malignancy of the laws being made in support of the indigenous measure of gender equivalency. Indian Constitution was astonishingly drafted which stood the test of time. Judiciary played an important part in conforming the indigenous ideas to the present generation. With every question of law which struck the every conception of gender justice have widened the compass and gave a larger platform for women to exercise their rights an par with their counter corridor. The Constitutional Provisions were proved to be a house of the protection for women of India from the clutches of male chauvinism.
REFERENCES
1) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1339558/ accessed 27 January 2025
2)https://www.scribd.com/document/574294038/Petitioner-Memorial-Muthamma-case. Accessed 27 January 2025
3)Project In charge Dr. Poornima Advani “Course Curriculum on Gender Sensitisation of Judicial Personnel ”At Workshop held at W .B. National University of Juridical Sciences On 1st & 2nd April, 2001,-229
4) Air India Etc. Etc vs Nergesh Meerza & Ors. Etc. Etc on 28 August, 1981
5) Smt Maya Devi vs State on 19 September, 2023
6) https://www.equalrightstrust.org/ertdocumentbank/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20Muthamma.pdf accessed 27 January 2025
