Landmark Judgments on Offences against Women under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 Women are an essential part of society and it is an undebatable fact that women have always been a vulnerable section of society. It has been also recognised by the Constitution of India. Hence, provisions for the protection of women from such exploitation are necessary. It is critical to understand that society is a dynamic institution inclusive of men and women alike and the society keeps on evolving, and the laws that govern the society shall also keep on evolving. Increase in the number of offences committed against women and incidents of violence are being witnessed by everyone globally. In the context of India, several incidents have happened in the past that led to the development of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Judiciary by the means of its judgements describes the need for changes in the existing laws.
Importance of Judgement in the Development of law Studies employing network analysis to reveal hidden mechanisms in judicial decision making, both in common law as well as civil law countries often use rather vague concepts of ‘importance’ of judicial decisions, concepts that are not always thoroughly explained, tend towards certain relativity and are used together with other similar words [(legal) relevance, (legal) significance…], with or without attempting explanation of these concepts, or relying purely on operationalization. This paper argues that in the context of legal systems that do not recognize a doctrine of precedent this approach is either oversimplified, or even erroneous. It further shows that ‘importance’ of past case-law is essentially a matter of the judge’s choice.
Tukaram v. the State of Maharashtra The infamous case of Tukaram and Another v. State of Maharashtra, more commonly known as the Mathura Rape Case, sparked off vehemence and uncurbed conflicts, leading to radical changes in the sphere of rape laws governing India. This case witnessed the problem of custodial rape of a young girl named Mathura. The Judgment of this case delivered by Justice Jaswant Singh, Kailasam and Koshal were highly condemned and criticized for it is logical, legal and linguistic fallacies along with its ambiguous and sexist tone. This case gained widespread recognition after four distinguished professors: Read More about this case: Tukaram and Another v. State of Maharashtra
Vishaka & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan
Vishaka & ors. v/s state of Rajasthan[1]is a case which deals with the evil of Sexual Harassment of a women at her workplace. It is a landmark judgment case in the history of sexual harassment which as being decide by Supreme Court. Sexual Harassment means an uninvited/unwelcome sexual favor or sexual gestures from one gender towards the other gender. It makes the person feel humiliated, offended and insulted to whom it is been done. In many of the cases, it has been observed that homosexual labor harass an employee belonging to the same sex to which he belongs. Read More about this case: Vishaka & ors. v/s state of Rajasthan
Laxmi v. Union Of India This case was Laxmi vs. Union of India and Others who issued a PIL brought about by Laxmi, an acid attack survivor which issued guidelines for betterment of Acid Attack Survivor. The Supreme court verdict-imposed restrictions on the sale of Acid and provide compensation to the victim. Earlier acid attacks were categorized in general category of offences that caused “grievous hurt”. The criminal amendment act of 2013 passed several new guidelines after the recommendations made by the justice J.S Verma commission after the 2012 gang rape and murder of a physiotherapy student, that acid violence is a separate offence and will now carry punishment of life imprisonment and fine. Before this verdict of Supreme court there was no ban on sale of acid on counters as well as the compensation provided by the government was not sufficient. Read More about this case: Laxmi vs. Union of India
Mukesh & Anr vs State For NCT Of Delhi (Nirbhaya Rape Case) The cold evening of Delhi on 16th December, 2012 could not have even remotely planted the feeling in the twenty-three year old lady, a para- medical student, who had gone with her friend to watch a film at PVR Select City Walk Mall, Saket, that in the next few hours, the shattering cold night that was gradually stepping in would bring with it the devastating hour of darkness when she, alongwith her friend, would get into a bus at Munirka bus stand to be dropped at a particular place; and possibly could not have imagined that she would be a prey to the savage lust of a gang of six, face brutal assault and become a playful thing that could be tossed around at their wild whim and her private parts would be ruptured to give vent to their pervert sexual appetite, unthinkable and sadistic pleasure. Read More about this case: Mukesh & Another v. State for NCT of Delhi & Others
Check All Related Latest Blogs 1
Websites Blogs For Indian Law Students And Lawyers
Read More
2
Section 377 In The Light Of Right To Privacy
Read More
3
T​op 10 Landmark Supreme Court Of India
Read More
4
Section 326 Indian Penal Code Know The Section
Read More
5
Know about POCSO ACT
Read More
Judgments