This Writ Petition was filed by a 24 years old married woman seeking permission of the High Court to terminate her pregnancy of over 30 weeks as the fetus suffered from multiple abnormalities. By order dated 31.10.2019, the Hon’ble High Court permitted the Petitioner to seek termination of her pregnancy, in recognition of her rights under Article 21 of the Constitution and the mental trauma that is likely to be caused to her on account of the fetal abnormalities, if the termination is not permitted.
On April 14th and 15th, we hosted the ‘Sexual and Reproductive Rights: Social Movements and Legal Battles’ conference, in collaboration with the University of Bergen, Norway and the University of Sussex at the Bangalore International Centre (see the full agenda here). The conference aimed to bring together prominent activists, academics and lawyers to discuss important issues and approaches that have developed in sexual and reproductive rights (SRR) advocacy in India. One of the key objectives of the conference was to shed light on issues and marginalised communities that are at the margins of SRR discourse and action.This blog post presents the key points raised on day 2 of the conference.
On 9th March, 2019, Centre for Law and Policy Research (CLPR) organised a one-day consultation with Centre for Reproductive Rights (CRR), to discuss the implementation of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (PCMA) and the 2016 Karnataka Amendment to the PCMA.
The present petition has been filed by Saraswati Kumar, a minor aged 15 years seeking annulment of her marriage under Section 3 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (PCMA) as it was solemnized when she was a minor and she was forcefully taken away from the custody of her parents.
Two days before the International Women’s Day, UNICEF reported on 6th March 2018 that there had been a downward trend in child marriages globally and in the past decade the number of underage marriages in India had nearly halved.
The Press Conference sought to spread awareness about the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Independent Thought v. Union of India and the implications of this decision.
In 2013, Independent Thought, a voluntary organisation involved with the issue of child rights approached the Supreme Court seeking a declaration that Exception 2 to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code violates Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution to the extent that fixes a lower age of consent and permits forced sexual intercourse by the husband with a girl who is between the ages of 15 to 18. Consequently, on 28.08.2017, an application for Intervention was filed on behalf of the Child Rights Trust, a non-governmental organisation working to secure Every Right for Every Child. Advocate Jayna Kothari, Executive Director of the Centre for Law & Policy Research appeared and argued on behalf of the Child Rights Trust.
On 19.09.2016, a Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay delivered a landmark verdict in a suo motu Public Interest Litigation recognizing that imprisoned women, like other women, have the right to make choices with regard to motherhood and right to facilities to undergo safe abortions.
Podcast on CLPR’s interventions against Child Marriage. Learn about our research into, and litigation against, Child Marriage and Marital Rape Exception.
As part of its Monthly Talk Series the Centre for Law and Policy Research (CLPR), Bangalore on the 24th of June, hosted Ms. Sonali Kusum, a Ph.D. scholar at National Law School of India University, Bangalore for a talk on the legal and ethical issues concerning surrogacy law in India.
The Supreme Court has been predominantly lauded in 2015 for its far-reaching judgment in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India that expansively interpreted the freedom of speech. But we must not forget that the Supreme Court and some of the High Courts have rendered a few prominent judgments that have upheld women’s rights significantly in 2015.
Her research seeks to answer three main questions: Are judges in the lower courts in India making reasoned feminists judgments? Can the Hunter framework apply to trial court orders? What are the additional criteria one needs to look at to call a judgment feminist?
he violation of human rights pertains to ‘rape cases’ including distorting investigation in rape, pre-conceived notions of ‘honour’, certain regressive court judgments (in some cases, we are told, that the rapist made a magnanimous offer to marry the girl). Thus, complaints of rape become mere matters of formality – low on priority because there is no understanding of the acuteness of the violation of the human rights of a woman and the psychological trauma she undergoes. This is compounded by vulnerabilities emanating from class/caste/community disadvantages and also that of poverty. This has led to a subculture of oppression.