Githa Hariharan vs Reserve Bank of India AIR 1999 SC 1149 - Case Analysis

Introduction of Githa Hariharan vs Reserve Bank of India AIR 1999 SC 1149

The landmark case of Githa Hariharan vs Reserve Bank of India (1999) addressed important issues related to guardianship rights particularly under Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. The Supreme Court in its decision on 17th February 1999 challenged the gender bias inherent in the law which prioritised fathers over mothers as natural guardians. The case examined the constitutional validity of the provision in light of the right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 and Article 15 of the Indian Constitution. The decision highlighted that both parents are equal guardians, promoting gender equality and prioritising the welfare of the child in matters of guardianship.

📚 Exclusive Free Judiciary Notes For Law Aspirants

Subjects	PDF Link
Download the Free Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita PDF Created by legal experts	Download Link
Grab the Free Law of Contract PDF used by Judiciary Aspirants	Download Link
Get your hands on the most trusted Free Law of Torts PDF	Download Link
Crack concepts with this Free Jurisprudence PDF crafted by top mentors	Download Link

Download Githa Hariharan vs Reserve Bank of India AIR 1999 SC 1149 PDF

Historical Context and Facts of Githa Hariharan vs Reserve Bank of India AIR 1999 SC 1149

The case at hand involves the Petitioner Githa Hariharan who was married to Dr. Mohan Ram in 1982. They have a son named Rishab Bailey. A divorce case between Ms. Hariharan and Dr. Mohan was pending in the District Court of Delhi.

Dr. Mohan sought custody of their son despite his apparent lack of interest in the upbringing and general welfare of Rishab. Ms. Hariharan filed a claim for maintenance for both herself and Rishab.

Application for Relief Bonds

Ms. Hariharan in 1984 applied to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) for 9% relief bonds in the name of her son Rishab and designating herself as his natural guardian. 

Rejection of Application

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) rejected the application of Ms. Githa Hariharan and stated the requirement that the application must be signed by the minor’s father or be accompanied by a guardianship certificate from a competent authority declaring Ms. Hariharan as the guardian.

Constitutionality of Section 6(a) of HMGA, 1956

Following the rejection of the application Ms. Hariharan filed a writ petition and challenged the constitutional validity of Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. The Section states that the father is the natural guardian of a minor with the mother having guardianship rights only ‘after’ the father. 

Challenge to Section 19(b) of the Guardians and Wards Act

Githa Hariharan also challenged Section 19(b) of the Guardians and Wards Act and contended that both Section 6(a) and Section 19(b) were discriminatory and contrary to the equality principles under the Constitution.

Discrimination Against Women

Ms. Hariharan argued that Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act discriminates against women by prioritising the father as the natural guardian. She contended that this provision is a violation of Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination) of the Indian Constitution.

The term “after” in the phrase “father and after him the mother” implies that the mother’s guardianship rights are secondary to the father’s during his lifetime, placing women at a disadvantage and limiting their right to guardianship.

Disinterest of the Father in the Welfare of the Child

Ms. Hariharan argued that Dr. Mohan had shown apathy towards Rishab and was largely uninvolved in his life. She contended that in situations where the father is either absent or indifferent, the mother should not be restricted from exercising her right of guardianship.

Joint Application for Relief Bonds

During the proceedings, Ms. Hariharan and Dr. Mohan jointly applied for the relief bonds in the name of their son Rishab with Ms. Hariharan explicitly mentioned as the guardian. Despite this, Dr. Mohan filed a counter-affidavit asserting his exclusive natural guardianship rights over Rishab.

Petition under Article 32

Ms. Hariharan filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India in the Supreme Court. She sought to invalidate Section 6(a) and Section 19(b) on grounds of discrimination. She also seeked confirmation of her status as natural guardian of Rishab and the right to exercise guardianship without restriction.

Issue addressed in Githa Hariharan vs Reserve Bank of India AIR 1999 SC 1149

The main questions which was addressed in this case were-

• Whether the mother of a minor be recognized as a natural guardian under law?
• Whether Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (HMGA) violated the right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 and Article 15 of the Indian Constitution?

The decision in the Githa Hariharan case centres around the interpretation of Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 regarding the rights of a mother and a father as natural guardians of a Hindu minor child. The following points were addressed by the Supreme Court in this case-

Concept of Welfare of the Child

The Court asserted that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration when determining guardianship. The Court cited the case of re McGrath (1893). In this case it was held that the well-being of the child including moral, emotional and physical must be on priority.

Gender Bias in Interpretation

The Court noticed that Section 6(a) of the Act creates a hierarchy by stating that the father is the natural guardian ‘and after him, the mother.’ However, the Court highlighted that this interpretation should not be rigid as it may lead to discrimination based on gender and which is violative of the constitutional mandate of gender equality under Articles 14 and 15 of the Indian Constitution.

Role of the Mother as Guardian

The Supreme Court referred to several cases such as J.V. Gajre vs Pathankhan (1970). In this case it was held that a mother could act as the natural guardian when the father was uninterested in or absent from the life of the child. The Court acknowledged the mother as a natural guardian in such cases. The Court rejected the assumption that the right of the father as guardian is absolute.

Analysis of ‘After’ in Section 6(a) in HMGA

The Court stated that the word ‘after’ mentioned in Section 6(a) should not be interpreted to suspend the guardianship rights of the mother while the father is alive. Instead, the term should be read in the context of the welfare principle and allowing both parents to be considered natural guardians.

Gender Equality and Constitutional Validity

The Court highlighted that gender equality is a fundamental principle of the Indian Constitution. It concluded that any statutory interpretation leading to discrimination or gender bias must be avoided. It was also held that both parents share an equal responsibility in the care and guardianship of their child and neither parent having absolute authority over the other.

Final Judgement in Gita Hariharan vs Reserve Bank of India

The Supreme Court held that both the father and the mother are natural guardians of a Hindu minor and that the term “after” in Section 6(a) does not imply a hierarchy favouring the father’s guardianship over the mother’s. It highlighted that the welfare of the child is paramount and that the interpretation of Section 6(a) should reflect constitutional principles of gender equality and the child’s best interests.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court in Githa Hariharan vs Reserve Bank of India (1999) clarified that a parent’s ability to care for a child, not their gender, should determine their role as a guardian. The decision promotes equality and states that both parents have an equal responsibility in caring for their child.