The Kerela High Court held that a married woman is entitled to undergo in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) using a donor gamete even if her husband exceeds the age limit prescribed in the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 (ART Act).

The Bench observed that the ART Act does not impose a collective age restriction for 'commissioning couples' but instead adopts an individual-centric approach.

The hospital denied treatment to the wife in the instant case, aged 46, and her husband aged 57, reasoning the husband's age exceeds the prescribed 55-year limit for men seeking ART Services.

During a mediation session in a Pune district court, a judge questioned a woman involved in a domestic violence case about her lack of traditional marital symbols.

The judge remarked, "I can see that you are not wearing a mangalsutra and bindi. If you don't behave like a married woman, why would your husband show any interest in you?"

In another case, the judge advised a woman to be "flexible" in financial disputes, stating that a rich man may marry a maid, but a wealthy woman wouldn't marry a lower-earning man.

Ankur R. Jahagirdar, in a viral LinkedIn post, also noted that such remarks are common and often go unchallenged in district courts. 

The Supreme Court canceled the bail of Shahida Bano's in-laws in an alleged dowry death case, stressing the need for deeper scrutiny in such matters.

Married to Sami Khan in February 2022, Shahida faced dowry harassment and was found hanging in January 2024.

Her parents filed an FIR and the report confirmed that she had been strangled and did not die by suicide, leading to charges under IPC Sections 498A, 304B, and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

While the Sessions Court denied bail, the High Court granted it.

The Supreme Court reviewed the case and canceled the bail citing strong evidence, but upheld the bail for her sisters-in-law.

The Kerala High Court has ruled that a married woman of eligible age can independently undergo Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) procedures, even if her husband surpasses the age limit, provided he consents.

Justice C.S. Dias emphasized that the ART (Regulation) Act 2021 follows an individual-centric approach, with separate age criteria for men (21-55 years) and women (21-50 years).

The court highlighted that denying ART services based on a husband's ineligibility would create an unfair disadvantage for married women compared to single women. 

The ruling allowed the 46-year-old petitioner to proceed with IVF despite her 57-year-old husband's ineligibility.

The Kerala High Court has ruled that a woman is ineligible to obtain an eligibility certificate for surrogacy upon attaining the age of 50 years.

Referring to Section 4 (C) (i) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act 2021 , Justice CS Dias stated that a female would be eligible to obtain an eligibility certificate for surrogacy when she attains the age of 23 and becomes ineligible on the preceding day of her 50th birthday. 

The petitioners were orally informed that they were ineligible for surrogacy since the wife had crossed the age limit.

The HC dismissed the writ petition observing that the Board had rightly concluded that the wife was ineligible since she had attained the age of 50 years. 

The Bombay High Court permitted a 35-year-old lady to terminate her 25-week pregnancy at a private hospital despite the rules of Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) which prevent termination of pregnancy beyond 24 weeks by any private institutions.

The bench order ruled this decision was made under the conscious right of the petitioner over reproductive freedom and on consideration of the opinion of the Medical Board.

The Bench has asked for an affidavit from the private hospital stating they had all the facilities to conduct the procedure. 

The next hearing is fixed for 10th March.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court permitted the termination of a minor rape survivor’s pregnancy despite exceeding 24 weeks, stating that forcing her to continue the pregnancy would cause significant hardship.

The Court cited X v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 9 SCC 433, which recognized a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy based on medical and socio-economic factors.

The 17-year-old survivor sought termination, but Gandhi Medical College and Hamidia Hospital denied it under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. 

The Court mandated expert medical supervision, informed consent, post-operative care, and preservation of fetal DNA for prosecution.

It also directed the State to care for the child if born alive. The appeal was allowed, and termination was granted.

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court has ruled that a woman’s Scheduled Tribe (ST) status cannot be revoked solely due to marriage outside her community.

The verdict came in response to a petition filed by Shivaeta Rani, a Padri tribe member, who was denied an ST certificate after marrying outside her tribe.

The court deemed the denial arbitrary and discriminatory, stating that marital status does not affect an individual’s ST/SC/OBC identity. It referred to the Ministry of Home Affairs’ clarification that SC/ST individuals retain their status post-marriage.

Accordingly, the court directed authorities to issue an ST certificate, reinforcing legal safeguards against marriage-based exclusion.

The Allahabad High Court ruled that a woman has the right to decide whether to continue a pregnancy resulting from sexual assault.

It heard a plea filed by a 17-year-old rape survivor’s father, seeking abortion permission under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (MTP Act).

The petitioner, pregnant at 19 weeks, sought termination. The court cited the MTP Act with its 2021 amendment, which allows abortion up to 24 weeks in certain cases, and ordered an immediate medical examination by a three-member medical committee.

Referring to Venkatalakshmi v. State of Karnataka, the bench held that forcing a victim to bear her assaulter’s child would cause severe mental anguish and violate her dignity. 

The Gauhati High Court has constituted a committee to oversee the implementation of the Supreme Court’s directions issued in the case of Rajeeb Kalita v. Union of India & Ors. for constructing toilet facilities in court premises, particularly for women, specially-abled, and transgender persons.

The committee includes registrars, chief secretaries, finance and PWD officials from Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, and Arunachal Pradesh, alongside Bar Association representatives.

The Registrar will act as Secretary, assisted by the Joint Registrar (PM&P), which has to be appointed within 6 weeks.

This initiative aims to ensure compliance with SC guidelines and improve sanitation infrastructure in courts and tribunals across the Northeast Region.

The special bench at Kerala High Court has advised the state government to appoint a Chairperson for the Film Policy Drafting & Cinema Conclave Committee who inspires confidence among women, 

The issue was raised by Advocate Sandhya Raju about the selection of a person accused of gender bullying and corruption. 

The court emphasized the importance of the Chairperson’s integrity, especially after the Hema Committee report exposed exploitation in the Malayalam film industry. 

The state was asked to submit its plan for the conclave by the next hearing in March, which will discuss potential legislation for workplace protection, including for women in entertainment.

The Supreme Court issued a notice on a PIL seeking changes to OBC certificate guidelines, allowing children of single mothers to obtain certificates without needing documents from the paternal side.

The petitioner, a retired MCD teacher, argues that the current rule unfairly excludes single mothers—widows, divorced, or adoptive mothers—by preventing them from securing OBC certificates for their children, violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

The plea highlights that SC/ST single mothers can obtain caste certificates for their children, while OBC mothers cannot.

The Court has sought responses from the Delhi government and the Union of India.

The Gujarat High Court set aside a single judge's order directing the state to appoint a woman with 70% permanent disability as an Anganwadi worker, citing the physical demands of the role.

The woman, selected through advertisement, was denied the appointment after being deemed unfit based on a medical certificate stating her disability.

The court emphasized the sensitive nature of duties, including childcare, health monitoring, and community outreach, as per the 2019 Government Resolution.

The division bench ruled that the authorities had the right to assess her fitness, concluding she couldn't efficiently fulfil these responsibilities.

The Supreme Court has directed reserving the treasurer post in the Advocates Association Bengaluru (AAB) for women under Article 142. 

A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh emphasized the need for women's representation in AAB's governing council. 

This decision stems from a plea by the Karnataka Federation of Women Lawyers seeking 33% reservation for women advocates. 

The Court extended nomination deadlines and allowed deferral of elections to implement the order, diverging from the Karnataka High Court's ruling, which cited a lack of express provisions for such reservations.

Similar directives have been applied to Delhi's NGT Bar Association, Tax Bar Association and Sales Tax Bar Association.