Supreme Court: Governments should give importance to family life of employees while making policy
The Supreme Court on Thursday said that governments while framing policy on inter-commissionerate transfers for their employees (including husband and wife) should give due consideration to the importance of safeguarding the dignity of an individual and their family life as an element of privacy. The court observed that the state’s intervention in the rights of individuals to privacy, dignity and family life should be proportionate.
A bench headed by Justice Dhananjay Y Chandrachud said the responsibility of determining how a particular policy should be modified keeping in view the requirements of maintaining family life can be left to the government. However, in framing the policy, the state cannot say that it will remain oblivious to the constitutional values like protection of family life etc. Protection of family life is an ‘event’ of Article 21.
Women are subject to patriarchal mindset
Referring to the systemic discrimination against women at the workplace on account of gender, the bench observed that it becomes necessary for the government to adopt policies that create ‘real equality of opportunity’ for women at the workplace, apart from formal equality. Because women are subject to a patriarchal mindset, which considers them to be the primary caregivers and housewives, thus placing an unequal burden of family responsibilities on them. The top court said such a policy has to meet the criterion of legality, suitability, necessity and balance of values.
The validity of a policy can be assessed on the basis of constitutional norms
The bench upheld a decision of the Kerala High Court, which held that the withdrawal of a circular by the Central Board of Excise and Customs relating to inter-commissioned transfer was not invalid. The bench said that we uphold the decision of the High Court and leave it to the respondent (Central Government) to reconsider the posting of husband and wife, the needs of the disabled and the policy of compassionate grounds.
The bench said that in the exercise of judicial review, this court cannot direct the executive to formulate a particular policy, but the validity of a policy can be assessed on the basis of constitutional norms. The top court said such an exercise should be left to the executive’s jurisdiction. In this process, it should be ensured that the constitutional values under Article 14, 15, 16 and 21 of the Constitution are duly protected.
