The gender justice jurisprudence in India is posited at two extremities—protectionism and empowerment. The Supreme Court (SC) has delivered many landmark decisions celebrating the empowerment perspective. But when the issue lies at the intersection of gender and religion, the tone of the SC becomes protectionist in nature. The protectionist approach works at three levels. First, the court treats all women equally, whitewashing their inherent non-homogeneity and imposing equality in deeply unequal circumstances. Second, the degree of protectionism differs based on which religion is under scrutiny. Third, women’s rights are seen as against male privilege, excluding the possibility that women may not want to be equal to men. ‘Being equal to man’ recognises that ‘being man’ is the highest achievable status. The perspective piece argues that there is no need to create an all-men world by making women equal to men. Rather, the self-worth of a woman needs to be recognised free of a ‘male yardstick’, which might usher in true empowerment.
Abu-LughodL. (2002). Do Muslim women really need saving? Anthropological reflections on cultural relativism and its others. American Anthropologist, 104(3), 783–790. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.2002.104.3.783
2.
AgnesF. (2021). India’s family laws are discriminatory. That’s why judges shouldn’t be ‘neutral’ on gender. The Wire. https://thewire.in/women/indias-family-laws-are-gender-blind-judges-shouldnt-be-afraid-to-question-them
3.
AsadT. (2003). Formations of the secular: Christianity, Islam, modernity. Stanford University Press.
4.
AuestadL. (2005). Respect, Plurality and prejudice: A psychoanalytical and philosophical enquiry into prejudice. Nordic Journal of Human Rights, 23(3), 267–286.
5.
BeauvoirS. de. (1997 [1949]). The second sex. (ParshleyH. M., Trans.) Random House.
6.
BrackeS., & FadilN. (2012). ‘Is the headscarf oppressive or emancipatory?’ Field notes from the multicultural debate. Religion and Gender, 2(1), 36–56. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2a50/933510a09c14e10ffd6473d1a4cf0468ac10.pdf
7.
ButlerJ. (2011). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. Routledge.
8.
CanodeJ. (2002). Thinking the body: Sexual difference in philosophy an examination of Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s account of embodiment in phenomenology of perception. McNair Scholars Journal, 6(1). https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/mcnair/vol6/iss1/6
9.
ChooH. Y., & FerreeM. M. (2010). Practicing intersectionality in sociological research: A critical analysis of inclusions, interactions, and institutions in the study of inequalities. Sociological Theory, 28(2), 129–149. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9558.2010.01370.x
10.
ConnollyL. (1999). Feminist politics and the peace process. Capital & Class, 23(3), 145–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/030981689906900109
11.
ElGuindiF. (1981). Veiling Infitah with Muslim ethic: Egypt’s contemporary Islamic movement. Social Problems, 28(4), 465–485. https://doi.org/10.2307/800058
12.
EngineerA. A. (1987). The Shah Bano controversy. Stosius Inc/Advent Books Division.
13.
FraserN. (1981). Foucault on modern power: Empirical insights and normative confusions. Praxis International, 3, 272–287. https://carbonfarm.us/amap/fraser_power.pdf
14.
FrydenlundI., & LeidigE. (2022). Introduction: ‘Love Jihad’: Sexuality, reproduction and the construction of the predatory Muslim male. Religions, 13(3), 201. https://research.tilburguniversity.edu/en/publications/introduction-love-jihad-sexuality-reproduction-and-the-constructi
15.
Githa Hariharan and Another v. Reserve Bank of India and Another, AIR 1999 (2) SCC 228. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-law-and-religion/article/gender-and-the-faith-in-law-equality-secularism-and-the-rise-of-the-hindu-nation/C5E07F5372F318B2A95D6C6B89CB2993
16.
Indian Young Lawyers Association (IYLA) v. The State of Kerala, (2019) 11 SCC 1.
17.
Joseph Shine v. Union of India, (2018) 2 SCC 189.
18.
KapurR. (2019). On gender, alterity and human rights: Freedom in a fishbowl. Feminist Review, 122(1), 167–171. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26797428
19.
KapurR. (2020). Gender and the ‘faith’ in law: Equality, secularism, and the rise of the Hindu nation. Journal of Law and Religion, 35(3), 407–431. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-law-and-religion/article/gender-and-the-faith-in-law-equality-secularism-and-the-rise-of-the-hindu-nation/C5E07F5372F318B2A95D6C6B89CB2993
20.
LazregM. (2009). Questioning the veil: Open letters to Muslim women. Princeton University Press.
MacKinnonC. A. (2020). Equality. Daedalus, 149(1), 213–221. https://direct.mit.edu/daed/article/149/1/213/27302/Equality
23.
MahmoodS. (2006). Secularism, hermeneutics, and empire: The politics of Islamic reformation. Public Culture, 18(2), 323–347. https://read.dukeupress.edu/public-culture/article-abstract/18/2/323/31836/Secularism-Hermeneutics-and-Empire-The-Politics-of
24.
MahmoodS., & DanchinP. G. (2014). Politics of religious freedom: Contested genealogies. South Atlantic Quarterly, 113(1), 1–8. https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2583&context=fac_pubs
25.
MahmoodS. (2001). Feminist theory, embodiment, and the docile agent: Some reflections on the Egyptian Islamic revival. Cultural Anthropology, 16(2), 202–236. http://www.jstor.org/stable/656537
26.
MahmoodS. (2012). Politics of piety: The Islamic revival and the feminist subject. Princeton University Press.
27.
MahmoodS. (2015). Religious difference in a secular age: A minority report. Princeton University Press.
28.
MohantyC. T. (2005). Feminism without borders: Decolonizing theory, practicing solidarity. Zubaan.
29.
NashJ. C. (2008). Re-thinking intersectionality. Feminist Review, 89(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1057/fr.2008.4
30.
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, AIR2018SC 4321.
31.
OkinS. M., CohenJ., HowardM., & NussbaumM. C. (1999). Is multiculturalism bad for women?Princeton University Press.
32.
PashaS. (2022). ‘People think no woman could wear a hijab out of choice’: Stories of everyday discrimination. The Wire. https://thewire.in/communalism/people-think-no-woman-could-wear-a-hijab-out-of-choice-stories-of-everyday-discrimination
33.
Purdie-VaughnsV., & EibachR. P. (2008). Intersectional invisibility: The distinctive advantages and disadvantages of multiple subordinate-group identities. Sex Roles, 59(5–6), 377–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9424-4
34.
Resham, through Next Friend Mubarak v. State of Karnataka, represented by the Principal Secretary, Department of Primary and Secondary Education and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine Kar 315: (2022) 1 KCCR 865 (FB): (2022) 1 CCC 208: (2022) 2 AIR Kant R 450: AIR 2022 Kar 81: (2022) 3 CTC.
35.
RussellJ. S. (1995). Okin’s Rawlsian feminism?: Justice in the family and another liberalism. Social Theory and Practice, 21(3), 397–426. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23557194
36.
Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 635.
37.
SenJ. (2016). Righting Sarla Mudgal v Union of India and Others. Jindal Global Law Review, 7(1), 97–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41020-016-0020-0
38.
Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., (2018) 16 SCC 408.
39.
Shayara Bano v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1.
40.
TaylorC. (1989). Sources of the self: The making of the modern identity. Harvard University Press.
41.
TaylorC. (2018). A secular age. Belknap Press.
42.
X v. The Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 621.
