Case Law On Women And Children Protection Laws And Enforcement

11 Oct 2025 --
0 Comments

🧑‍⚖️ 1. Vishaka & Others v. State of Rajasthan (1997)

Citation: AIR 1997 SC 3011

Facts:

This landmark case arose after the gang rape of Bhanwari Devi, a social worker from Rajasthan who was trying to prevent a child marriage.

There were no specific laws at the time addressing sexual harassment at the workplace.

Issues:

Whether sexual harassment at the workplace violates the fundamental rights of women under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court held that sexual harassment violates women’s right to equality, life, and dignity.

The Court laid down the Vishaka Guidelines — the first legal framework in India to address sexual harassment at work.

Impact:

These guidelines became the basis for the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013.

It empowered women to seek redress for harassment in both public and private sectors.

👩‍⚖️ 2. Laxmi v. Union of India (2014)

Citation: (2014) 4 SCC 427

Facts:

The petitioner, Laxmi, was an acid attack survivor who filed a PIL seeking stricter regulation on the sale of acid and adequate compensation for victims.

Issues:

Whether the government was obligated to control the easy availability of acid and ensure rehabilitation and compensation for victims.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court issued directions:

Acid sale should be strictly regulated.

Victims should receive a minimum compensation of ₹3 lakhs.

States must ensure free medical treatment and rehabilitation.

Impact:

The case led to concrete government action, including the Poison Control Rules and amendments to IPC Sections 326A and 326B, which criminalize acid attacks and prescribe life imprisonment for offenders.

👶 3. Gaurav Jain v. Union of India (1997)

Citation: (1997) 8 SCC 114

Facts:

The petitioner, a journalist, filed a PIL to protect the rights and rehabilitation of children of sex workers and sexually exploited women.

Issues:

Whether children born to sex workers are entitled to the same rights, education, and opportunities as other children.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court directed the Union and State governments to:

Establish rehabilitation homes for sex workers.

Provide education, vocational training, and protection to their children.

Impact:

The case recognized the right to dignity and equality for marginalized women and children.

It guided government policies under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, ensuring welfare programs and social inclusion.

🧒 4. Sheela Barse v. Union of India (1986)

Citation: AIR 1986 SC 1773

Facts:

Journalist Sheela Barse filed a PIL highlighting the inhumane conditions of children in jails and the need for separate facilities for juvenile offenders.

Issues:

Whether the imprisonment of children with adults violates Article 21 (Right to Life and Dignity).

Judgment:

The Supreme Court directed:

Separate lock-ups and observation homes for children.

Juveniles must not be kept with adult prisoners.

Speedy inquiry and release of children from jails.

Impact:

This case led to reforms under the Juvenile Justice Act, promoting the concept of rehabilitation instead of punishment for children in conflict with law.

👩‍👧 5. Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty (1996)

Citation: (1996) 1 SCC 490

Facts:

The accused deceived the victim into a false marriage and subjected her to repeated sexual assaults.

Issues:

Whether the victim of rape is entitled to compensation during trial and if rape violates fundamental rights.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court held that rape is a violation of the victim’s fundamental right to life and dignity under Article 21.

Ordered the accused to pay monthly compensation to the victim during the pendency of the case.

Impact:

This case was a turning point in recognizing compensation for rape victims as a part of their fundamental right.

It reinforced the idea that courts can grant interim compensation even before the trial concludes.

⚖️ 6. Independent Thought v. Union of India (2017)

Citation: (2017) 10 SCC 800

Facts:

A child rights organization challenged Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC, which exempted a husband from rape charges if the wife was between 15 and 18 years old.

Issues:

Whether this exception violated the rights of minor girls and conflicted with child protection laws.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court read down Exception 2, declaring that sexual intercourse with a wife below 18 years amounts to rape.

Impact:

This ruling harmonized IPC, POCSO Act, and child marriage laws, affirming that minor girls deserve full protection from sexual violence — even within marriage.