Constitution and Natural Guardian
Précis WRITING
Ms. Githa Hariharan & Anr. Vs. Reserve Bank of India & Anr.
The case of ‘Ms. Githa Hariharan & Anr vs. Reserve Bank of India & Anr’ was filed in the Supreme Court of India as a writ petition. Ms. Githa Hariharan filed this writ in lieu of her being discriminated against, sexually. The Reserve Bank denied Ms. Githa the status of ‘natural guardian’, of her own son, based on gender bias. They had asked for appropriate documents to support her claim. According to the facts of the case, Ms. Hariharan was married off in 1982, to a certain Mr. Ram. Their son Rishabh, was born to them in July 1984. Ms. Hariharan applied for a Relief bond to the Reserve Bank in her son’s name. She also applied to be the natural guardian of her son (a minor). This application was sent back requesting the father to authorize the application. The bank further requested Ms. Hariharan to produce appropriate documents if she was to be the natural guardian. For this reason, Ms. Hariharan along with the help of Ms. Indira Jaising filed the writ petition. It should also be noted that the father was not an active participant in his son’s life. This case brought out a conflict of interest between the orthodox Hindu law and the contemporary Constitutional law of the land. Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act of 1956 states that a mother may be the ‘natural guardian’ of her son, only after, the death of the father. This is a direct violation of Articles 14 and 15 of the Indian Constitution. Therefore, the integral problem of this case was, whether Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act of 1956 is ultra vires the Constitution of India. Another issue, as to whether a mother can be a ‘natural guardian’ or not while the father of the child is still alive, was also addressed. The case was presided over by Justice Banerjee. He gave utmost importance to the best interests of the child. For this reason, he used ‘Gajre vs. Pathankumar’ as a
Ms. Githa Hariharan & Anr. Vs. Reserve Bank of India & Anr.
The case of ‘Ms. Githa Hariharan & Anr vs. Reserve Bank of India & Anr’ was filed in the Supreme Court of India as a writ petition. Ms. Githa Hariharan filed this writ in lieu of her being discriminated against, sexually. The Reserve Bank denied Ms. Githa the status of ‘natural guardian’, of her own son, based on gender bias. They had asked for appropriate documents to support her claim. According to the facts of the case, Ms. Hariharan was married off in 1982, to a certain Mr. Ram. Their son Rishabh, was born to them in July 1984. Ms. Hariharan applied for a Relief bond to the Reserve Bank in her son’s name. She also applied to be the natural guardian of her son (a minor). This application was sent back requesting the father to authorize the application. The bank further requested Ms. Hariharan to produce appropriate documents if she was to be the natural guardian. For this reason, Ms. Hariharan along with the help of Ms. Indira Jaising filed the writ petition. It should also be noted that the father was not an active participant in his son’s life. This case brought out a conflict of interest between the orthodox Hindu law and the contemporary Constitutional law of the land. Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act of 1956 states that a mother may be the ‘natural guardian’ of her son, only after, the death of the father. This is a direct violation of Articles 14 and 15 of the Indian Constitution. Therefore, the integral problem of this case was, whether Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act of 1956 is ultra vires the Constitution of India. Another issue, as to whether a mother can be a ‘natural guardian’ or not while the father of the child is still alive, was also addressed. The case was presided over by Justice Banerjee. He gave utmost importance to the best interests of the child. For this reason, he used ‘Gajre vs. Pathankumar’ as a