Githa Hariharan and Anr. vs Reserve Bank of India and Anr.
- ByPravleen Kaur --
- 03 May 2025 --
- 0 Comments
I. Introduction
This judgment deals with two writ petitions (No. 489/95 and No. 1016/91) filed before the Supreme Court of India, challenging the constitutionality of Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (HMG Act) and Section 19(b) of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (GW Act). The petitioners argued that these provisions discriminate against women by relegating the mother to an inferior position as a natural guardian of her minor child during the lifetime of the father. [Paragraph 5]
II. Facts of the Cases
A. Writ Petition No. 489/95
• The first petitioner (wife) and her husband (second petitioner) jointly applied to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) for issuing Relief Bonds in the name of their minor son. [Paragraph 4]
• They agreed that the first petitioner (mother) would act as the guardian of the minor for investment purposes. [Paragraph 4]
• The RBI refused to accept the application, advising the petitioners to either produce the application signed by the father or a certificate of guardianship from a competent authority in favor of the mother. [Paragraph 4]
B. Writ Petition No. 1016/91
• The petitioner is the wife of the first respondent, who had instituted divorce proceedings against her in the District Court, Delhi. [Paragraph 5]
• The first respondent (husband) had been repeatedly asserting that he was the only natural guardian of their minor son and that no decision should be taken without his permission. [Paragraph 5]
• The minor son was staying with the petitioner (mother), and the first respondent had shown total apathy towards the child's welfare. [Paragraph 5]
III. Contentions of the Parties
A. Petitioners' Contentions
• Section 6(a) of the HMG Act and Section 19(b) of the GW Act are violative of the equality clause of the Constitution, as the mother's right as a natural guardian is made cognizable only 'after' the father. [Paragraph 7]
• These provisions discriminate against women on the ground of sex alone and must be struck down as unconstitutional. [Paragraph 7]
B. Respondents' Contentions
• The mother is not the natural guardian of the minor son, and Section 6(a) of the HMG Act states that the father is the only natural guardian of a Hindu minor. [Paragraph 6]
IV. Judgment
A. Observations by Justice Umesh C. Banerjee
1. The word 'after' in Section 6(a) of the HMG Act should be interpreted in consonance with the legislative intent of protecting the welfare of the child. A narrow, pedantic interpretation running counter to the constitutional mandate should be avoided. [Paragraph 19]
2. Both the mother and the father are duty-bound to take care of the person and property of their minor child. Therefore, both parents ought to be treated as guardians of the minor. [Paragraph 22]
3. The word 'after' in Section 6(a) does not necessarily mean 'after the death of the father'. It should be interpreted as 'in the absence of' the father, referring to situations where the father is absent from the care of the minor's property or person for any reason, such as indifference, mutual agreement between parents, or physical/mental incapacity. [Paragraph 25]
4. Interpreting the word 'after' literally would run counter to the constitutional guarantee of gender equality and the legislative intent of the welfare of the child. [Paragraph 26]
5. The RBI authorities are directed to formulate appropriate methodology in light of the observations made by the Court. [Paragraph 27]
6. The District Court, Delhi, shall decide the matter regarding the custody and guardianship of the minor son in Writ Petition No. 1016/91 in accordance with the Court's observations. [Paragraph 28]
B. Observations by Chief Justice Dr. A.S. Anand and Justice M. Srinivasan
1. The definitions of 'guardian' and 'natural guardian' in Sections 4(b) and 4(c) of the HMG Act do not discriminate against the mother. She is one of the guardians mentioned in Section 6 and would undoubtedly be a natural guardian. [Paragraph 7]
2. The phrase 'after him, the mother' in Section 6(a) gives an impression that the mother can be considered a natural guardian only after the father's lifetime. However, such an interpretation violates gender equality, a basic principle of the Constitution. [Paragraph 7]
3. Section 6(a) is capable of being construed in a manner that retains it within constitutional limits. The word 'after' need not necessarily mean 'after the lifetime'. In the context of Section 6(a), it means 'in the absence of', referring to the father's absence from the care of the minor's property or person for any reason. [Paragraph 10]
4. If the father is wholly indifferent to the matters of the minor, or if there is a mutual understanding between the parents that the mother is put exclusively in charge of the minor, or if the father is physically unable to take care of the minor due to staying away or physical/mental incapacity, the father can be considered 'absent', and the mother, being a recognized natural guardian, can act validly on behalf of the minor. [Paragraph 10]
5. This interpretation gives effect to the principles contained in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the Beijing Declaration, to which India is a signatory. [Paragraph 14]
6. Section 19(b) of the GW Act should also be construed in the same manner as Section 6(a) of the HMG Act. [Paragraph 15]
7. In situations where the father is not in actual charge of the minor's affairs due to indifference, agreement with the mother, or physical/mental incapacity, the mother can act as the natural guardian, and all her actions would be valid even during the father's lifetime, who would be deemed 'absent' for the purposes of Section 6(a) of the HMG Act and Section 19(b) of the GW Act. [Paragraph 16]
8. The RBI was not right in insisting on an application signed by the father or a court order to open a deposit account in the name of the minor, particularly when there was a joint letter from both petitioners evidencing their mutual agreement. The RBI should accept the application filed by the mother. [Paragraph 17]
9. This judgment will operate prospectively and will not enable any person to reopen any decision already rendered or question the validity of any past transaction based on this judgment. [Paragraph 18]
10. The RBI and other organizations may formulate appropriate methodology in light of the Court's observations to meet situations arising in the contextual facts of a given case. [Paragraph 19]
11. The District Court, Delhi, shall decide the matter regarding the custody and guardianship of the minor son in Writ Petition No. 1016/91 in light of the Court's observations. [Paragraph 20]
V. Conclusion
The Supreme Court interpreted Section 6(a) of the HMG Act and Section 19(b) of the GW Act in a manner that upholds gender equality and the welfare of the minor child. The Court held that the mother can act as the natural guardian of the minor even during the father's lifetime if the father is absent from the care of the minor due to indifference, mutual agreement, or physical/mental incapacity. The Court directed the RBI and other organizations to formulate appropriate methodology in light of its observations.
RELATED Blog
0 comments