Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Bar Council of India, although not a party in the present writ petitions, is hereby suggested to make rules for women students claiming relaxation on ground of Maternity relief so that they are not deprived of appearing in the LLB examinations due to pregnancy."

16. The Madras High Court by its judgment in W.P.No.440/2011 in the case of A Arulin Ajitha Rani -vs- State and others has held as under:

"15. The General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), on 18th December 1979. India ratified the Convention on 25.6.1993 with some reservations. At the 4th World Conference on Women held in Beijing, the Government of India made an official commitment to formulate and operationalise a national policy and also to set up a Commission for women's rights. This eventually led to the enactment of the Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

16. Some of the Articles of CEDAW, which may help in throwing some light on the issue raised in the writ petition, are as follows:

(i) Article 4.2 of the Convention declares that the adoption by States Parties of special measures, including those measures contained in the present Convention, aimed at protecting maternity shall not be considered discriminatory;

(ii) Article 5(a) mandates States Parties to take appropriate measures to modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view to achieve the elimination of prejudices and customary and all other practices which are based on the idea of inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women;

20. The petitioner was selected the DNB Course in the year 2009. A lot of change has been taken at this juncture to consider the long absence on the part of the petitioner. It is appropriate to issue any direction either to the 1st respondent or the 2nd respondent to permit the petitioner to continue the course. In these circumstances, it is appropriate to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the case of the petitioner on the basis of her completion of CET admission to the DNB course of the year 2009. By taking note of her admission, the 1st respondent is directed to permit the petitioner to start afresh the DNB course for three years. In view of the same, the 1st and 2nd respondents have to take a decision whether the petitioner is to get admitted to the 3rd respondent/Institute or any other Institute to prosecute the DNB course. Hence, it is appropriate to direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to permit the petitioner as an exceptional circumstances. In the light of the judgments referred to above, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Courts of Delhi and Tamilnadu considered the similar cases by referring the provisions in the Convention for Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). The Vienna Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women was ratified by the U.N.O on December 18, 1979. If the said decision is not taken as per the discussion, it may be contrary to the judgments referred to above, more particularly, the Government of India is a party. Under these circumstances, the petition is entitled to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed.