Adarsh Kumar
Justice M. Fathima Beevi, the former Supreme Court Judge, is one of the flagbearers of women empowerment, as she became the first female to be appointed as a judge in the Supreme Court in 1989. Starting her career from being an advocate to becoming an Apex court judge, and then served as the Governor of Tamil Nadu has been a remarkable journey. She also has been a member of the Human Rights Commission. Apart from being an inspiring personality on the Bench, certain controversies kept surrounded her during her service while holding political positions.
Early life and education
She was born on 27th April 1927 to Meera Sahib and Khadeeja Bibi, at Pathanamthitta, Travancore, now in Kerala. She did her schooling from Catholicate High School and got the degree of Bachelor of Sciences in Chemistry from University College, Thiruvananthapuram. She obtained her Bachelor’s degree in Law from Government Law College, Trivandrum. In Law College, she was one of the five female students during the first year, then the number of female students fell in the second and third year, and only three female students left in her batch including her.
She belonged from a royal family of Pandalam in Kerala, known for their scholarly profession. She had a keen interest in Chemistry but her father didn’t want her to become a professor or lecturer and wanted her not to remain in the home city, consequently was advised to pursue law.
Professional life
Justice Fathima started her professional life as an advocate after acing the Bar Council exam in 1950, as the topper. She served as a litigator in Kerala for 8 years, then she was appointed as a Munsiff at the Kerala Subordinate Judicial Services court in May 1958. Later, she got promoted as the Sub-ordinate judge in 1968, and as the Chief Judicial Magistrate in 1972. In 1974, promoted as district and Sessions Judge, as the Judicial member of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in 1980, then got elevated as the High Court Judge in 1983 and became a permanent judge of the High court in 1984. After retiring as the judge of High Court on 29th April 1989, she got elevated to the Apex Court as a judge on 6th October 1989 and served till 29th April 1992.
Apart from Judicial positions, she also served as a member of the National Human Rights Commission in 1993, and later as the Governor of Tamil Nadu. During her tenure as the Governor, she rejected the mercy petitions filed by the four condemned prisoners in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. Some controversies also erupted during her tenure as the governor, her decision to elect Jayalalitha as the Chief Minister was severely criticized. Being the governor, she served as the Chancellor of Madras University, where she was criticized for withholding her approval for the establishment of a new department for contemporary Tamil literature. Apart from these, she served as the chairman of the Kerala Commission for backward classes in 1993. She also became the nominee as the President of India, against the President Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam.
Major Judgements
Justice M. Fathima Beevi has been involved in numerous judgments of the Apex court which directly or indirectly has impacted the society at large and few of them are discussed below:
1. St. Stephen’s college v. University of Delhi [(1992) 1 SCC 558]
She was on the bench along with H. Kania and 3 other judges. This case is related to the minority’s right to establish and to run an educational institution.
Facts –St. Stephen’s College is affiliated to Delhi University. During the academic year 1980-1981, St. Stephen’s VC declared scheduled necessary dates and procedures before the admission dates of Delhi University. The admission to B.com and B.A. was based on marks of the qualifying exam. Individual subjects were given weighted but not notified in advance in the prospectus, though it was notified that final admission would be based on student choice. A student filed a writ petition in the HC challenging the admission schedule. Subsequently, St. Stephen’s college appealed to the SC against the decision of the HC.
Judgment – It held that HC didn’t pay attention to the evidence presented by the petitioner, and Indian citizen is not a condition for the application of Art. 30, so didn’t deny. A condition of the person establishing an educational institution must be a resident of India and must form a linguistic and religious minority.
2. Mohan Kumar Singhania v. Union of India [(1992) Suppl. (1) 594]
A three judges bench held that each of the various civil services, i.e. IAS, IPS, IRS, Group A, and Group B services are determinately a distinct cadre and that each of them is based upon intelligible differentia, which on a reasonable ground differentiates persons grouped, from other opted out. These differences are “real and substantial” having a rational nexus.
3. Gurja Bedia v. State of Bihar [(1990) 1 Supp(1) SCC 521]
Three-Judge Bench allowed an appeal by a convict in High Court. In this criminal case, the appellant was charged with Dacoity and Murder. They were convicted by the trial court and then the conviction was upheld by the High court. The appeal was made before the Apex court, where appellants contended that the testimony of injured witnesses suffers from infirmities, hence casts doubt regarding the identity of the assailants. The injured witness was lying unconscious when a prime witness came to the house and the next day the witness gave the statement after regaining consciousness. It was held not safe to convict the appellants when there were reasonable doubts regarding the participation of the appellants and thus benefit of the doubt was given to the appellants.
Conclusion
Justice M. Fathima Beevi led an inspiring life in the times when women were rigidly stuck in the patriarchal society and suffering gender discrimination. As rightly said by Justice. Bevi, “I opened the way…” she paved the way for the women to the Apex body of Justice. Even though the number of female Judges in the Supreme Court remains low, right now three female judges are active in the Apex court. She has received Hon. D Litt and Mahila Shiromani Award in 1990, she also bagged Bharat Jyoti Award. She pointed out in recent years that there is a need to increase the representation of women in the higher judiciary, she also advocates about bringing reservation for women in the higher judiciary to increase their representation.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in the articles on this website are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions held by the website owner.