Case – Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India, 1999 Case Analysis
Fact – Githa Hariharan, the parents of a minor applied to the Reserve Bank of India for relief bonds in the name of their son. In the application, they stated that the mother would act as the guardian of the child for purposes of investments made with the money. Accordingly, in the prescribed form, the mother signed as the guardian. The bank refused to entertain the application, and asked the parents to produce the application form signed by the father, or a certificate of guardianship from a competent authority, in favour of the mother.
Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, and section 19(b) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, were challenged as being violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India, since the mother is relegated to an inferior position.
Issue – Is that the correct way of understanding the section and does the word “after” in the section mean only “after the lifetime”?
Did Parliament intend to transgress the constitutional limits or ignore the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution which essentially prohibits discrimination on the grounds of sex?
Contentions and Judgement:
- The Court observed that the wording of section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956—the father and after him the mother —do give an impression that the mother can act as a guardian only after the lifetime of the father.
- However, instead of striking down this section, as also section 19(b) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 as unconstitutional, it chose to construe them in a manner, in which they would not offend the constitutional mandate of equality and nondiscrimination.
- According to the court, the Constitution of India, which came into being in the year 1950, prohibits gender discrimination, and the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 came six years later. The Parliament could not have intended “to transgress the constitutional limits or ignore the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India, which essentially prohibits discrimination on grounds of sex.”
- Adopting the rule of harmonious construction, it held that the word “after” in section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 need not necessarily mean “after the lifetime” but, “in the absence of.”
- If the father is not in charge of actual affairs of the minor, either because of his indifference, or by virtue of mutual understanding between the parents, or because of some physical or mental incapacity, or because he is staying away from the place where the mother and the minor are living, then, in all such situations, the father can be considered as “absent” under the provisions of both the above-mentioned statutes, and the mother, who in any case is a recognized natural guardian, can act validly on behalf of the minor as the guardian.
- The predominant consideration in every case, however, would be the welfare of the child.
