Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

India

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Comparative Perspectives on the Enforcement and Effectiveness of Antidiscrimination Law

Part of the book series: Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law ((GSCL,volume 28))

Abstract

The right to equality and non-discrimination is being spoken about increasingly at a global level. At the same time, social stratification in one form or the other has existed in all societies. In this paper, the researchers seek to examine the Indian framework on antidiscrimination laws.

We would like to thank Danish Sheikh and Tarunabh Khaitan for their input.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 299.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 379.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 379.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Nayyar (2011).

  2. 2.

    Human Rights Watch (2016).

  3. 3.

    Human Rights Watch (2016).

  4. 4.

    Human Rights Watch (2001).

  5. 5.

    Nayyar (2011).

  6. 6.

    The Equal Rights Trust (2016).

  7. 7.

    The Equal Rights Trust (2016).

  8. 8.

    See Deshpande (2011), pp. 19–20.

  9. 9.

    Untouchability is a phenomenon wherein members of the Dalit community are forbidden from touching other persons or objects; the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 seeks to counter this.

  10. 10.

    Unlike the UK, which has the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality specifically empowered to enforce antidiscrimination law: See Townshend-Smith (1998), pp. 497–538.

  11. 11.

    Under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

  12. 12.

    Article 51A(e) of the Constitution of India, 1950 also imposes a duty to renounce practices derogatory to women.

  13. 13.

    The Supreme Court (2016).

  14. 14.

    Under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India, 1950.

  15. 15.

    In accordance with Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India, 1950.

  16. 16.

    Deshpande (2011), p. 221.

  17. 17.

    Harlieb (2016).

  18. 18.

    Section 11(2), Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

  19. 19.

    Section 59, Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.

  20. 20.

    Section 60, Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.

  21. 21.

    Section 14, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

  22. 22.

    Section 3, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

  23. 23.

    Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995.

  24. 24.

    Section 21(2)(iii), Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

  25. 25.

    Section 12, Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993; Section 9, National Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993; Section 9, National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992.

  26. 26.

    Singh (2016).

  27. 27.

    Section 3, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

  28. 28.

    Much like the Indian law on rape: Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Men who have been raped or sexually harassed may take recourse to the controversial Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

  29. 29.

    See MacKinnon (1979).

  30. 30.

    Sheikh and Bhatia (2016).

  31. 31.

    Alternative Law Forum (2014).

  32. 32.

    Centre for Policy Research (2015).

  33. 33.

    Sunday Story: Mandal Commission report, 25 years later, The Indian Express (September 1, 2015), available at http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/sunday-story-mandal-commission-report-25-years-later/ (last visited on July 30, 2016).

  34. 34.

    Deshpande (2011), p. 221.

  35. 35.

    Gandhi (2016).

  36. 36.

    Rakshit (1999), pp. 2379–2381.

  37. 37.

    Lawyers Collective (2016).

  38. 38.

    Centre for Law and Policy Research (2016).

  39. 39.

    Centre for Law and Policy Research (2016).

  40. 40.

    Weisser (2016).

  41. 41.

    Weisser (2016).

  42. 42.

    Frontline (2016).

  43. 43.

    See Townshend-Smith (1998), p. 511.

  44. 44.

    Sudhir (2015).

  45. 45.

    A form of divorce recognized by Muslim law where the husband pronounces the word “talaaq”, meaning divorce, thrice in one sitting. A divorce is irrevocably effected upon this pronouncement. The wife has no option to assent to or object to the divorce; see Agnihotri (2017).

  46. 46.

    The practice of triple talaaq has recently been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

  47. 47.

    Deshpande (2011), pp. 106–146.

  48. 48.

    Oxford Pro Bono Publico (2012).

  49. 49.

    Mitra (2016).

  50. 50.

    Nayyar (2011).

  51. 51.

    Mitra (2016).

  52. 52.

    Jaffelot (2017).

  53. 53.

    Nayyar (2011).

  54. 54.

    Khaitan (2015).

  55. 55.

    Khaitan (2015).

  56. 56.

    Weisser (2016).

  57. 57.

    Weisser (2016).

  58. 58.

    Center for Human Rights and Global Justice & Human Rights Watch (2007).

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Supreme Court of India, New Delhi, India

    Maithili Pai & Nupur Raut

Authors
  1. Maithili Pai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nupur Raut
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maithili Pai .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Sciences Po Law School, Paris, France

    Marie Mercat-Bruns

  2. Berkeley Law, Berkeley, California, USA

    David B. Oppenheimer

  3. Berkeley Law, Berkeley, California, USA

    Cady Sartorius

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Pai, M., Raut, N. (2018). India. In: Mercat-Bruns, M., Oppenheimer, D., Sartorius, C. (eds) Comparative Perspectives on the Enforcement and Effectiveness of Antidiscrimination Law. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 28. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90068-1_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90068-1_16

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-90067-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-90068-1

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation