Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India

In Hariharan Rajendran v. Reserve Bank of India, the petitioner, a married mother with a minor son, applied to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) for bonds to be issued in her son’s name, signing as his guardian. The RBI returned the application, requesting either the father’s signature or a guardianship certificate from a competent authority, relying on Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (HMGA), which stated that the father is the natural guardian of a Hindu minor and the mother is the guardian “after” the father. The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of this provision in the Supreme Court, arguing that it violated Articles 14 and 15 of the Indian Constitution. The Court, citing constitutional principles of gender equality as well as CEDAW and the UDHR, interpreted the word “after” to mean “in the absence of,” whether due to the father’s inaccessibility, indifference, or lack of capacity, not solely his death. Upholding the provision’s validity, the Court held that both father and mother are natural guardians and that determining guardianship must prioritize the welfare of the child. The decision clarified that under the HMGA, either parent may be the natural guardian, depending on who is capable, available, and committed to the child’s welfare.

Topics

• Gender discrimination
• International law

Geographical location

• Asia
• India

Keywords

• Guardianship
• Universal Declaration of Human Rights
• cedaw
• constitutional rights

Year

• 1999

External URL

• Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India

Court

• Supreme Court of India

Type

• Domestic Case Law