India

Primary tabs

Caselaw

La petición en esta Demanda de Interés Público (PIL) citaba información de los estados de Uttar Pradesh, Bihar y Maharashtra acerca de prácticas gubernamentales sobre esterilización femenina que carecían de la debida consejería o consentimiento informado, y de cuidado pre y post operatorio, e incluían condiciones quirúrgicas antihigiénicas y sin uso de anestesia, esterilización de menores, coerción y crueldad.

The petition in this public interest litigation (PIL) case cited data from the States of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and Maharashtra, regarding government practices regarding female sterilization, which lacked counseling or informed consent, lacked pre- and post-operative care, and included unhygienic and un-anesthetized operating conditions, sterilization of minors, coercion and cruelty.  The PIL requested the Court to direct the state governments to comply with the Ministry of Health and Welfare’s Guidelines on Standards of Female Sterilization, enacted in October 1999 (“the Guidelines”).

El caso fue presentado por Human Rights Law Network (HRLN) ante la Corte Constitucional debido a que no se cumplía una sentencia previa que establecía directrices contra el acoso sexual en el lugar de trabajo en la India: Vishaka c./ State of Rajasthan (6SCC 241, 1997). En su decisión de 2012, la Corte Suprema de la India repitió las directrices Vishaka que había emitido en 1997, destacando que se debían tomar

The case was presented by the Human Rights Law Network (HRLN) to the Constitutional Court in light of the non-enforcement of a previous decision that established guidelines against sexual harassment at the work place in India: Vishaka vs.

Este caso se presentó en nombre de Shanti Devi, una mujer pobre que pertenecía a una "casta programada" (scheduled caste[1]), después de que muriera como consecuencia de que le fuera negada la asistencia médica durante el embarazo a pesar de que cumplía los requisitos para recibir servicios gratis conforme a los planes estatales

This case was brought on behalf of Shanti Devi, a women living in poverty from a Scheduled Caste, after she died as the result of being refused adequate maternal healthcare despite the fact that she qualified for the free services under existing state-sponsored schemes. In 2008, Shanti Devi was forced to carry a dead fetus in her womb for five days after being denied medical treatment at several hospitals because her husband was unable to show a valid ration card for medical services, despite being qualified for one as they lived below the poverty line.

Naz Foundation India, una organización no gubernamental comprometida con el tratamiento y prevención del VIH/SIDA, presentó una demanda de interés público ante el Tribunal Superior de Nueva Delhi cuestionando la constitucionalidad del art. 377 del Código Penal de la India, el cual declara ilegal todo acto sexual "antinatural", definido como todo aquel diferente de la relación sexual heterosexual. El Tribunal Superior desestimó la presentación original de 2004 por falta de hechos o antecedentes que justificaran la acción judicial.

The Naz Foundation India, a non-governmental organization committed to HIV/AIDS intervention and prevention, filed a public interest litigation in the Delhi High Court challenging the constitutionality of Section 377 of the India Penal Code, which makes it illegal to engage in any "unnatural" sexual act, defined as sex other than heterosexual intercourse. The Delhi High Court dismissed the original writ of petition in 2004 for lack of a cause of action.

This petition was brought to challenge the constitutionality of imposing a "capitation fee" (a fee based on the number of persons to whom a service is provided, rather than the actual cost of providing a service) on those people who wanted to enter a private medical school and were not admitted to the "government seats". These seats are reserved by the Government of India for members of communities that are explicitly recognized by the Indian Constitution as requiring support to overcome historic discrimination, or other groups designated by the government.

The state of Punjab enacted a law to prevent rickshaw pullers from being exploited by middlemen. It created a program whereby rickshaw pullers would be given an interest-free loan to buy their own rickshaws, and the state issued licenses to the owners to make sure the law was enforced.  Only the owners could pull the newly purchased rickshaws, and licenses would not be issued or would be revoked if the state learned that someone else was pulling the rickshaw.