Women empowerment can only be achieved with economic empowerment, rules Supreme Court

The Supreme Court yesterday gave the benefit of age relaxation rules to a woman police officer and directed the Chhattisgarh government to appoint her Deputy Superintendent of Police..The judgment was delivered by Justices AK Sikri and Abhay Manohar Sapre. Senior Advocate Ajit Kumar Sinha appeared for the Appellant, Richa Mishra. Advocates Apoorv Kurup and Aniruddha P Mayee and Dr. Harsh Pathak appeared for the Respondents..The case pertains to appointments to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. The Appellant was one of the applicants, who was 54th on the merit list. At that time she was already a government employee. However, the final list did not have her name since she had exceeded 25 years of age which was the requirement under the Chhattisgarh Police Executive (Gazetted) Service Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2000 (2000 Rules). She however claimed the age relaxation benefit applicable to women under the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Special Provision for appointment of women) Rules, 1997 (1997 Rules). The High Court ruled against her..The question before the court was whether “notwithstanding the fact that 2000 Rules do not contain any provision for relaxation qua women candidates, it would still be available to women candidates under 1997 Rules?”.The 2000 Rules dealt with age criteria that has to be fulfilled by the candidate and did not have any provision for age relaxation for women candidates. It contained specific provisions for age relaxation for certain other categories and it also had a specific provision which stated that ‘in no other case age limits will be relaxed’..On the other hand 1997 Rules contained special provisions for age relaxation of women candidates. The question was whether the 1997 Rules would be applicable in those cases where recruitment is made under 2000 Rules. The Court answered the same as follows:.“In the first instance, it is to be borne in mind that Rules, 1997 are specific Rules, specially meant to give benefit of age relaxation to women in public service and post in connection with the affairs of the State. These Rules are statutory in nature framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Such a special provision is made in favour of females in consonance with the Constitutional spirit contained in Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India which empowers the State to make any special provision for women and children…….…when such affirmative actions are taken by lawmaker, in the form of subordinate legislation, they need to be enforced appropriately so that the purpose that is intended is suitably achieved. Seen in this context, Rule 4 of Rules, 1997 is to be interpreted to have universal application when it comes to women candidates seeking appointment in public service and post in connection with the affairs of the State of Chhattisgarh. After all, that is the primary purpose behind enacting the aforesaid Rule having statutory character. In order to gather the intention of the lawmaker, the principle of ‘purposive interpretation’ is now widely applied.”.The Court held that the omission of benefit provided by the 1997 Rules in Rule 8 of 2000 Rules was accidental and not a case of “casus omissus”..“Because of this reason, said omission was also rectified while enacting Rules, 2005 by making a specific provision in Rule 8(f) of Rules, 2005. Therefore, the intention of the rule making authorities had always been to give benefit of relaxation in age to women candidates. After all, we are called upon to interpret subordinate legislation salutary aim whereof is to achieve social purpose and consequently social justice…..When all the aforesaid Rules are seen in juxtaposition and in conjunction with each other, intention of rule – making authority becomes apparent and is clearly ascertained. The intention of rule – making authority was, and it continues to be so, to give benefit to age relaxation to women candidates. That, according to us, represents the true intention. Otherwise the very purpose of such Rules is defeated.”.The Court, therefore, ruled that the age relaxation benefit under the 1997 Rules would be applicable and directed the State government to appoint Richa Mishra as DySP..Most interestingly, in para 26 of the judgement, the court has stressed on the need for empowering women through economic empowerment..“Women in this world, and particularly in India, face various kinds of gender disabilities and discriminations. It is notwithstanding the fact that under the Constitution of India, women enjoy a unique status of equality with men. In reality, however, they have yet to go a long way to achieve this Constitutional status. It is now realised that real empowerment would be achieved by women, which would lead to their well-being facilitating enjoyment of rights guaranteed to them, only if there is an economic empowerment of women as well. .Till sometime back, the focus was to achieve better treatment for women and for this reason, the concentration was mainly on the well-being of women. Now the focus is shifted to economic empowerment…… It is now realised that there is a bidirectional relationship between economic development and women’s empowerment defined as improving the ability of women to access the constituents of development-in particular health, education, earning opportunities, rights, and political participation. This bidirectional relationship is explained by Prof. Amartya Sen by propounding a theory that in one direction, development alone can play a major role in driving down an equality between men and women; in another direction, continuing discrimination against women can hinder development.”.…. Economic development, however, is not enough to bring about complete equality between men and women. Policy action is still necessary to achieve equality between genders. Such policy action would be unambiguously justified if empowerment of women also stimulates further development, starting a virtuous cycle. Empowerment of women, thus, is perceived as equipping them to be economically independent, self-reliant, with positive esteem to enable them to face any situation and they should be able to participate in the development activities. ….”.Justice Sapre in his short concurring judgment has expressed his support for his brother judge’ judgment while stressing on the observations made by Justice Sikri regarding the need to empower women..(Read the judgment in Richa Mishra v. State of Chhatisgarh & Ors.)