Public Interest Litigation

Public Interest Litigation / Social Action Intervention

Since 1978 there has been a substantial amount of public interest litigation undertaken on behalf of women, children and bonded labour. Public interest litigation has been an essential component of the LCWRI project from its very inception, focussed as it is on legal change.

Some of the major PIL's and social action litigation filed by the LAC are as follows:

  1. Geeta Hariharan v Reserve Bank of India - the constitutional validity of Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardinaship Act was challenged as being discriminatory towards women by denying equal guardianship rights. In this case the Supreme Court held that the impugned provision should be interpreted to meant that both the mother and father are natural guardians of their children.
  2. Daniel Latifi v Union of India - the LCWRI challenged the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights On Divorce) Act, 1986 on the grounds that it deprived Muslim women from applying for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was argued that this law was discriminatory and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Though the Supreme Court upheld the validity of this law, it read down its provisions to allow Muslim women the option to apply for maintenance under Section 125.
  3. CEHAT, MASUM and Dr Sabu George v Union of India and others - in light of the alarming decline in sex ratios in the country to the disadvantage of women, this petition was filed seeking directions from the Supreme Court for the implementation of the Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act which regulates the provision of pre-natal diagnostic technology. In this case the Court took on the unique role of actually monitoring the implementation of the law and issuing several beneficial directives over the course of 3 years during which the case was proceeding in court. This petition put the issue of sex selection and sex selective abortion on the national agenda and as a consequence there have been heightened activities on this issue by government and non-governmental agencies alike.
  4. Anweshi Women's Counselling Centre v State of Kerala - a petition was filed in the Kerala High Court seeking an independent enquiry into a number of cases relating to organised sexual crimes and commercial sexual exploitation.
  5. Ouster injunctions and applying innovative legal strategies - the LAC has innovatively applied tort law in obtaining injunctions in matrimonial proceedings in many cases. This useful precedent has been used in many cases in the Mumbai High Court.
  6. Air India case - in this ongoing case in the High Court of Delhi, the LAC is representing air hostesses of the Air India by challenging discriminatory policies that exclude women from the post of In Flight Supervisor on board an aircraft and limit the retirement age of women.
  7. Bar girls case - in this case pending before the Supreme Court of India, the LCWRI has been approached by 4 leading women's organisations based in Mumbai to represent bar girls in opposing an appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra against the decision of the Mumbai High Court striking down amendments to the Bombay Police Act which prohibited bar girls from performing without any rehabilitation measures put in place.

Participation in alternate dispute mechanisms

The LCWRI has successfully organised and participated in 2 Lok Adalats in collaboration with the Delhi State Commission for Women and Delhi Legal Services Authority. First Lok Adalat was held in the year 2002, wherein a total of 20 cases were settled. The second Lok Adalat was held in the year 2005, wherein 35 cases were settled. With a little over a 50% settlement rate the results of these Lok Adalats have been a tremendous success in providing expeditious settlement and relief to the parties.