Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 32 (0.42 seconds)The Protection Of Civil Rights Act, 1955
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 15 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 4 in The Protection Of Civil Rights Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Jeeja Ghosh & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 May, 2016
In Jeeja Ghosh v. Union of India32 and Vikash Kumar v. Union
Public Service Commission33 this Court recognized reasonable
accommodation as a substantive equality facilitator.
46 The jurisprudence relating to indirect discrimination in India is still at a
nascent stage.
Vikash Kumar vs Union Public Service Commission on 11 February, 2021
In Jeeja Ghosh v. Union of India32 and Vikash Kumar v. Union
Public Service Commission33 this Court recognized reasonable
accommodation as a substantive equality facilitator.
46 The jurisprudence relating to indirect discrimination in India is still at a
nascent stage.
Navtej Singh Johar vs Union Of India Ministry Of Law And ... on 6 September, 2018
Having said that, indirect discrimination has found its place in the
jurisprudence of this Court in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India34, where one
of us (Chandrachud J), in holding Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code as
unconstitutional insofar as it decriminalizes homosexual intercourse amongst
consenting adults, drew on the doctrine of indirect discrimination. This was in
arriving at the conclusion that this facially neutral provision disproportionately
affected members of the LGBT community.
Naz Foundation vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Others on 2 July, 2009
This reliance was in affirmation of the
decision of the Delhi High Court in Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of
Delhi35 which had relied on the ‘Declaration of Principles of Equality’ issued by
the Equal Rights Trust Act in 2008 in recognizing that indirect discrimination
occurs “when a provision, criterion or practice would put persons having a status
or a characteristic associated with one or more prohibited grounds at a particular
disadvantage compared with other persons, unless that provision, criterion or
practice is objectively justified by a legitimate aim, and the means of achieving
that aim are appropriate and necessary.”36 Similarly, this Court has recognized
the fashion in which discrimination operates by dint of “structures of oppression
and domination” which prevent certain groups from enjoying the full panoply of
32
(2016) 7 SCC 761
33
2021 SCC OnLine SC 84
34
(2018) 10 SCC 1, paras 442-446
35
(2009) 111 DRJ 1 (DB)
36
Id. at para 93
49
PART F
entitlements.37 The focus in antidiscrimination enquiry, has switched from looking
at the intentions or motive of the discriminator to examining whether a rule,
formally or substantively, “contributes to the subordination of a disadvantaged
group of individuals”38.
Inspector (Mahila) Ravina vs Uoi And Ors. on 6 August, 2015
47 Indirect discrimination has also been recognized by the High Courts in
India39. For instance, in the matters of public sector employment, the Delhi High
Court in Inspector (Mahila) Ravina v. Union of India40 and in Madhu v.
Northern Railways41, has upheld challenges to conditions of employment, which
though appear to be neutral, have an adverse effect on one section of the
society.