- One of the most common maxims known to humanity must be the oft-repeated refrain, ‘change is the only constant.’ This sentence reverberates across the world and at every level of society’s social structure since the perpetual unveiling/unearthing of newer inventions is the buzzword. Of course, the present-day world is driven by modernity, defined by the technological prowess of unbelievable dynamism, completely altering our existence in so many ways. So much so that we have become completely dependent on the fascinating material comforts on offer. However, have we changed our anachronistic, misogynistic, and parochial thought processes where male chauvinism still exists formidably despite witnessing such changes around us? Let’s dwelve.
PC: The Quint
- The Indian society is no different either. We continue to be a male-dominated society where some of the obsolete belief systems in the present-day world are still upheld despite gender parity, unbiased treatment, a level playing field, and women’s empowerment receiving tremendous attention from the powers that be. Are our practices in line with the fast-changing times, including women’s power to choose what they want/wish? What does the country’s higher judiciary’s interpretation of the matter? Take, for instance, the Himachal High Court’s recent response to a habeas corpus case. A man seeking Himachal HC’s help for a woman whose life he believes to be under threat, going by her text messages to him.
PC: ET Government
- Himachal HC division bench, instead of stepping up and maybe hearing the woman also, packs the petitioner off with a morality lecture. Only because the petitioner was the married woman’s live-in. And the petitioner feared her husband and mother-in-law detained her forcibly. The two judges were least mindful that SC decriminalized adultery (extramarital sexual relationships), in 2018. They ignored a married woman’s perceived threat to life. The bench only saw a man in an affair with a married woman. HC refused to enter a married couple’s life. It said – it is not for this court to intervene in matrimonial issues inter se the woman and her husband. Respectfully, it cannot be denied that the bench brought into their court a misplaced morality bias. Think about it.
PC: Mid-day
- The HC dismissed a habeas corpus – a very specific legal instrument to protect individuals from unlawful or arbitrary detention. This, when SC, in 2024, put out guidelines/safeguards for HCs to deal with detention by those with family authority, following a case where a petitioner alleged that an LGBTQ+ person was being held by family, against their wish. In this case, HC glanced at that case. Instead, it said, judicial sanctity cannot be given to adulterous relations. Such grandstanding is unwarranted. Surely, a petitioner’s relationship should not have so much bearing where a threat to life is alleged? There is nothing that would stop HC from penalizing the petitioner if the case were found to be frivolous. But the judges barely looked beyond the fact of the woman’s relationship outside of her marriage. We can be more accommodative on such matters.
