E-Paper
Supreme Court notice to Centre on rule against women accepting court summons
A bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, issued a notice to the Union government on a public interest litigation filed by Kush Kalra who complaining against the “discriminatory” language of Section 64 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to examine the validity of a legal provision, which states that only an “adult male member” can accept summons on behalf of a member of his family who cannot be found.
A bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, issued a notice to the Union government on a public interest litigation filed by Kush Kalra who complaining against the “discriminatory” language of Section 64 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
Section 64 lays down the procedure for serving of summons when the person concerned cannot be found at his address. The provision states that the summons may be served “with some adult male member of his family residing with him”.
“Issue notice, returnable in four weeks. Notice shall also issue to the Attorney General for India,” said the bench, which also comprised justice Hima Kohli, in its order.
Representing the petitioner, advocate Jyotika Kalra pointed out that Section 64 of CrPC discriminates against women by treating the female members of the family incapable of accepting the summons on behalf of the person summoned.
She added that excluding the female family members by insertion of the word “male” in the Section not only lacks any reasonable nexus with the object of the provision that seeks to avoid any unreasonable delay in the criminal proceedings, but it also does not take into account situations where the person summoned resides only with the female family members or when the only person available at the time of service of summons is a female.
“The possibility of such a situation (the only person available at the time of service of summons is a female) is particularly high in light of the stark gender gap in the workforce between the males and the females, i.e., only 22 per cent of the Indian women are at work, which entails that the remaining 78 per cent of women are at home,” said the petition.
It contended that the exclusion of female family members to receive summons on behalf of the summoned person violates the women’s right to equality under Articles 14 and 15, the right to know under Article 19(1)(a), and the right to dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The plea also lamented while the while the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), enacted in 1908, required the summons to be served on any adult member of the defendant’s family regardless of their gender, the CrPC, which was framed 65 years after the CPC, remained anarchic and dogmatic.
