Geeta Hariharan v Reserve Bank of India (1999)
⚖️ Geeta Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India (1999)
Court:
Supreme Court of India
Citation:
(1999) 2 SCC 228
Parties:
Petitioner: Geeta Hariharan
Respondent: Reserve Bank of India
1️⃣ Background of the Case
Geeta Hariharan, the petitioner, challenged the Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI) circular that permitted only male co-guardians to operate the accounts of minor children.
She argued that this policy discriminated against women and violated her constitutional rights under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Key Context:
The case dealt with the legal interpretation of “guardian” under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.
Section 6 of the Act provides that the natural guardian of a minor is the father if both parents are alive.
RBI’s circular reflected this statutory interpretation, limiting bank account operation to fathers only.
2️⃣ Legal Issues
Whether a mother is a natural guardian under Section 6 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act.
Whether RBI’s circular discriminates against mothers, violating Articles 14, 15, and 21.
Whether statutory interpretation should favor gender equality over traditional patriarchal norms.
3️⃣ Court’s Analysis
Interpretation of “Natural Guardian”:
The Court examined Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, which mentions:
Father as the guardian
Mother as guardian after the father’s death or incapacity
Gender Equality Principles:
The Court relied on Articles 14 (equality before law) and 15 (prohibition of discrimination).
Observed that mother is equally a natural guardian of her child, and restricting her rights violates constitutional guarantees of equality.
Functionality of Guardianship:
Court noted that guardianship includes:
Management of minor’s property
Custody and welfare decisions
Mothers are fully competent to manage their children’s financial and personal interests.
RBI Circular Invalidity:
The Court held that the RBI circular, by excluding mothers from operating minor accounts, was discriminatory and unconstitutional.
4️⃣ Court’s Decision
Supreme Court held:
Both father and mother are natural guardians of minor children while the child is a minor.
Mothers have equal rights to operate minor accounts and manage minor property.
RBI and all banking authorities must allow mothers to operate accounts and not discriminate based on gender.
The circular restricting mothers’ rights was struck down.
5️⃣ Legal Principles Established
Equality of Parents as Guardians:
Both father and mother are joint natural guardians, regardless of patriarchal bias.
Constitutional Protection of Gender Equality:
Any administrative or statutory action violating Articles 14, 15, or 21 can be challenged and struck down.
Interpretation of Statutes:
Statutory provisions should be read in light of constitutional values, including gender equality and fundamental rights.
6️⃣ Implications of the Case
Banking and Financial Rights:
Mothers now cannot be barred from managing minor accounts, ensuring equal economic participation.
Broader Guardianship Rights:
Affirmed that mothers have equal rights over custody, care, and management of children’s property under Hindu law.
Judicial Activism in Gender Equality:
Set a precedent for challenging patriarchal interpretations of laws that discriminate against women.
7️⃣ Key Takeaways
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Natural Guardians | Both father and mother are natural guardians of minor children. |
| Gender Equality | Administrative rules cannot discriminate against mothers in managing children’s accounts or property. |
| Constitutional Supremacy | Statutory interpretation must conform to Articles 14, 15, and 21. |
| Banking Rights | RBI and financial institutions must allow mothers full rights over minor accounts. |
RELATED Blog
0 comments