TS Sneha
ABSTRACT
The below article discusses the validity of Section 64 of CrPC which was challenged by two students of NUSRL in the case of Rajiv Pandey&Ravikant Sharma vs, Union of India and the State of Jharkhand because it was a gender-biased provision.
VALIDITY OF SECTION 64 OF CRPC
Section 64 of The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973[1] was challenged by two students of NUSRL, Ranchi because it is a gender-biased provision. The petition was about the unequal treatment rendered to women by denying them the right to accept summon on behalf of someone else who is summoned, which violates Article 14, 15, 19 and 21. In the 37th Law Commission Report, it was said that Section 70 of CrPC was changed according to the latest social conditions and servants were no more included in the definition of “family members”. In this regards, the petitioners argued that Section 64 must be extended to all adult members of a family.
The plea justified this by saying that denying women the right to accept summon on behalf of someone who is summoned is a form of discrimination that cannot be justified in anyway. They went on to justify saying, “Order V Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to recommend that the servant is not a member of the family.” The petitioners have requested the word “male” to be removed from the Section to include women as well and have compared the social injustice women face in their day-to-day lives in the petition. The prohibition made by the Statute clearly shows that it is a violation of Article 14[2] and 15[3] of the Constitution and Article 19[4] in the light that it protects the right to communication and information. Section 64 also violates the right to a speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21[5]because when women are denied the right to accept the summons, the process becomes time-consuming.[6]
The two main questions of law raised by the petition are as follows:
- Whether Section 64 of the Code of Criminal Procedure violates Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution?
- (ii) Whether Section 64 of the Code of Criminal Procedurewhich prohibits the women from receiving summon on behalf ofthe person summoned is rational and in line with the presentnotions of the status of the women in society?
The petitioners reiterated their pleading by stating The code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order V Rule 15, which is given below:
“WHERE SERVICE MAY BE ON AN ADULT MEMBER OF DEFENDANT’S FAMILY”
Where in any suit the defendant is absent from his residence at the time when the service of summons is sought to be effected on his at his residence, and there is no likelihood of his being found at the residence within a reasonable time, and he has no agent empowered to accept service of the summons on his behalf, service may be made on any adult member of the family, whether male or female,who is residing with him.[7]
Section 64 of CrPC also violates the principle of “Rule of Law” as put forth by Professor Dicey as the principle is based on equality of law and absence of arbitrary law.
The Petitioner further challenges the Section by bringing in international conventions and treaties likeThe Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), 1979 to enhance their statement of pleading to remove the word “male” to include all adults in the purview of Section 64 of CrPC. They went on to talk about the Preamble of the Constitution and the case of S.P.Gupta v. UOI, 1981 Supp SCC 87[8];Hon’ble Justice Bhagwati held that the citizens have a right to know.
With the above contentions, Section 64 of CrPCwas challenged by the two students, and they asked the Hon’ble bench to remove the word “male” from the Section to end the discrimination to women in the provision of the Section.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1]The Code of Criminal Procedure commonly called Criminal Procedure Code is the main legislation on procedure for administration of substantive criminal law in India. It was enacted in 1973 and came into force on 1 April 1974.
[2]Equality before law The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.
[3]Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.
[4]Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech etc.
[5]Protection of life and personal liberty No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
[6]https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/plea-in-jharkhand-hc-challenging-section-64-of-crpc-as-gender-discriminatory-read-petition-153295?infinitescroll=1.
[7]The code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order V Rule 15.
[8]S.P.Gupta v. UOI, 1981 Supp SCC 87.
Lawcutor 