1999 (2) TMI 64 - SC - Income Tax

Mother recognized as natural guardian under Indian laws promoting gender equality.

Ms. Githa Hariharan And Another Versus Reserve Bank Of India And Another

The court upheld the constitutionality of Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, and Section 19(b) of the Guardians and Wards Act, ... Whether the sale could be considered to have been effected by (the father) natural guardian of the minors, (though actually made by the mother) because the father had attested the sale deed? Held that:- While both the parents are duty bound to take care of the person and property of their minor child and act in the best interest of his welfare, we hold that in all situations where the father is not in actual charge of the affairs of the minor either because of his indifference or because of an agreement between him and the mother of the minor (oral or written) and the minor is in the exclusive care and custody of the mother or the father for any other reason is unable to take care of the minor because of his physical and/or mental incapacity, the mother, can act as natural guardian of the minor and all her actions would be valid even during the lifetime of the father, who would be deemed to be 'absent' for the purposes of section 6(a) of HMG Act and section 19(b) of the GW Act. Hence, the Reserve Bank of India was not right in insisting upon an application signed by the father or an order of the court in order to open a deposit account in the name of the minor particularly when there was already a letter jointly written by both petitioners evidencing their mutual agreement. The Reserve Bank now ought to accept the application filed by the mother. We are conscious of the fact that till now many transactions may have been invalidated on the ground that the mother is not a natural guardian, when the father is alive. Those issues cannot be permitted to be reopened. Issues Involved:1. Constitutionality of Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.2. Constitutionality of Section 19(b) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.3. Interpretation of the term 'natural guardian' in the context of gender equality.4. Reserve Bank of India's refusal to accept a deposit application signed by the mother as the guardian.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Constitutionality of Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956:The petitioners challenged Section 6(a) of the HMG Act as being violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, arguing that it relegates the mother to an inferior position solely based on gender. The court acknowledged that the phrase 'the father, and after him, the mother' in Section 6(a) gives an impression that the mother can only be a natural guardian after the father's lifetime. However, the court interpreted 'after' to mean 'in the absence of' the father, which includes situations where the father is indifferent, incapacitated, or has mutually agreed to let the mother be in charge. This interpretation aligns with the principle of gender equality and avoids rendering the statute unconstitutional.2. Constitutionality of Section 19(b) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890:Similar to Section 6(a) of the HMG Act, Section 19(b) of the GW Act was also challenged. The court construed Section 19(b) in the same manner, stating that the mother could act as the natural guardian in the absence of the father, thereby maintaining the constitutionality of the provision while ensuring it does not violate gender equality principles.3. Interpretation of the term 'natural guardian' in the context of gender equality:The court emphasized that both parents are duty-bound to care for their minor child and act in the child's best interest. The term 'natural guardian' under Section 4(c) of the HMG Act includes both the father and the mother. The court held that the word 'after' in Section 6(a) should be interpreted to mean 'in the absence of' rather than 'after the lifetime,' thus ensuring that the mother can act as a natural guardian during the father's lifetime if certain conditions are met, such as the father's indifference or incapacity.4. Reserve Bank of India's refusal to accept a deposit application signed by the mother as the guardian:The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) had refused to accept a deposit application in the name of the minor signed by the mother, insisting on the father's signature or a court order. The court found this refusal unjustified, especially when there was a mutual agreement between the parents. The RBI was directed to accept the application filed by the mother, recognizing her as the natural guardian in the given circumstances.Additional Observations:The court referred to international instruments like the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the Beijing Declaration, which advocate for gender equality. India, being a signatory to CEDAW, is obligated to prevent discrimination against women. The court's interpretation of Section 6(a) aligns with these international norms.Prospective Operation of the Judgment:The court clarified that this judgment would operate prospectively and would not allow reopening of past transactions or decisions invalidated on the ground that the mother was not considered a natural guardian during the father's lifetime.Directions to Reserve Bank of India and Other Organizations:The RBI and similar organizations were advised to formulate appropriate methodologies in light of the court's observations to handle similar situations in the future.Disposition of Writ Petitions:The writ petitions were disposed of with directions for the RBI to accept the application filed by the mother, and the pending dispute in the District Court, Delhi, regarding custody and guardianship of the minor child, was to be decided in accordance with this judgment. No order as to costs was made.Separate Concurring Judgment by Banerjee J.:Banerjee J. emphasized the changing social structure and the loud cry for gender equality. He reiterated that the Constitution negates gender bias and that the validity of Section 6 of the HMG Act was challenged on the grounds of inherent gender discrimination. He agreed with the interpretation that the word 'after' should mean 'in the absence of' rather than 'after the lifetime,' ensuring that the statute aligns with constitutional mandates and the welfare of the child.