Geeta Hariharan v Reserve Bank of India (1999)

The Supreme Court’s decision in Geeta Hariharan v Reserve Bank of India is a landmark ruling that redefined the interpretation of guardianship under Indian law. The case addressed deep-rooted gender biases in the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, challenging its constitutionality under Articles 14 and 15 of the Indian Constitution.

The judgement acknowledged the mother’s right to be recognised as the natural guardian of her child, provided her involvement served the child’s welfare. It highlighted the judiciary’s role in aligning legal provisions with constitutional values and evolving societal norms.

Facts of Geeta Hariharan v Reserve Bank of India

Geeta Hariharan married Dr. Mohan Ram in 1982, and they had a son, Rishab Bailey. Following marital discord, a divorce case was pending in the District Court of Delhi. Dr. Mohan, despite claiming custody of Rishab, showed apparent disinterest in his upbringing. In 1984, Ms. Hariharan applied to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) for relief bonds in Rishab’s name, listing herself as his natural guardian.

The RBI rejected Ms. Hariharan’s application, citing Section 6(a) of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, which gave precedence to the father as the natural guardian. It required either the father’s signature or a guardianship certificate issued by a competent authority in the mother’s favour. Ms. Hariharan challenged this rejection and the underlying legal provisions, alleging they discriminated against mothers based on gender.

Ms. Hariharan filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging:

• Section 6(a) of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, for violating Articles 14 and 15.
• Section 19(b) of the Guardian and Wards Act, for perpetuating gender inequality.

Issues Before the Court

The issues raised in Geeta Hariharan v RBI were: 

1. Constitutional Validity of Section 6(a): Whether Section 6(a) of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, prioritising the father as the natural guardian, violated Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution by discriminating against mothers.
2. Interpretation of the Term “After” in Section 6(a): Whether the term “after” referred strictly to the father’s death or also included other circumstances such as absence, incapacity, or lack of interest in the child’s welfare.
3. Best Interests of the Child: Whether guardianship laws prioritised the welfare of the child over traditional gender roles in parenting.
4. Applicability of Section 19(b) of the Guardian and Wards Act: Whether the provision, barring the appointment of a guardian when the father is alive, aligned with constitutional principles of equality and justice.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner’s Arguments (Geeta Hariharan)

1. Violation of Fundamental Rights: Section 6(a) of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act and Section 19(b) of the Guardian and Wards Act discriminated against mothers solely on the grounds of gender, violating Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.
2. Outdated Gender Stereotypes: The presumption that fathers are more capable guardians perpetuated outdated patriarchal norms, ignoring the mother’s active role and capability.
3. Harmonising Laws with Modern Values: Guardianship laws needed to reflect the principles of gender equality and align with contemporary societal dynamics and constitutional mandates.
4. Child Welfare as Paramount: The best interests of the child should guide guardianship decisions, rather than rigid legal presumptions favoring one parent based on gender.

Respondent’s Arguments (Reserve Bank of India)

1. Compliance with Existing Laws: The RBI’s rejection of the application was in line with Section 6(a) of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, which clearly stipulated the father as the natural guardian.
2. Judicial Overreach: Any modification to the statutory framework should be enacted through legislative reforms, not judicial interpretations.
3. Constitutionality of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act: The provisions of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act did not intend to discriminate but were based on societal norms prevalent at the time of enactment.

Geeta Hariharan v Reserve Bank of India Judgement

The Supreme Court in Geeta Hariharan v RBI delivered a landmark judgement, interpreting Section 6(a) of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act in a manner consistent with constitutional principles and modern societal values.

Key Findings

1. Interpretation of “After” in Section 6(a): The Court in Geeta Hariharan v Reserve Bank of India held that the term “after” should not be strictly construed to mean “after the father’s death.” Instead, it encompassed situations where the father:
   • Is absent.
   • Shows apathy towards the child’s welfare.
   • Is otherwise incapable of fulfilling guardianship responsibilities.
2. Constitutional Mandates of Equality: The Court reaffirmed that laws discriminating on the basis of gender violated Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.
3. Child Welfare as Paramount: The Geeta Hariharan vs Reserve Bank of India judgement underscored that the welfare of the child should take precedence over legal formalities or traditional presumptions about parental roles.
4. Shared Responsibility of Parents: Both parents were deemed equal in their responsibilities and rights to act as natural guardians, barring evidence to the contrary.
5. Directive to RBI and District Court: RBI was instructed to revise its procedures to align with the Court’s interpretation, ensuring mothers could act as natural guardians without unnecessary procedural hurdles. The District Court, in deciding custody matters, was directed to prioritise the welfare of the child.

Geeta Hariharan v RBI Summary

The Supreme Court’s landmark judgement in Geeta Hariharan v Reserve Bank of India (1999) redefined guardianship laws under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. It challenged Section 6(a), which designated the father as the natural guardian, deeming it discriminatory and unconstitutional under Articles 14 and 15. The Court interpreted “after” to include situations where the father is absent, apathetic, or incapable, granting mothers equal rights as natural guardians. Prioritising the welfare of the child, the ruling emphasised gender equality, reshaped traditional norms, and reinforced shared parental responsibilities, marking a significant step towards justice in Indian family law.