Hey learners,
In the early 1990s, author and mother Githa Hariharan faced a moment every parent fears. She wanted to make an important decision regarding her young son — but the application form she filled out asked for the “father’s signature,” assuming only the father could act as guardian.
Even though she was the primary caregiver, the law treated her as a secondary figure — someone who could step into the role only if the father was dead, incapable, or unwilling.
Feeling this was unfair and discriminatory, she questioned a law that had stood unquestioned for decades. Her challenge was not just for her child — but for mothers across India who shared parenting responsibilities but were legally treated as secondary.
This case became a turning point in redefining parental rights under Indian law.
Case Details
| Particular | Information |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Judgment Year | 1999 |
| Citation | (1999) 2 SCC 228 |
| Area of Law | Guardianship, Gender Equality, Constitutional Law |
| Relevant Law | Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (HMGA) & Constitution of India |
Facts of the Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India Case
- Githa Hariharan applied to the Reserve Bank of India naming herself as guardian of her minor son for investment purposes.
- RBI declined, stating only the father could be the "natural guardian."
- The refusal was based on Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, which stated: “The father, and after him, the mother, is the natural guardian.”
- This wording implied that the mother could only act as guardian after the father — meaning upon his death, incapacity, or absence.
- Feeling discriminated against, Githa Hariharan filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of Section 6.
Legal Issues Before the Court
- Does Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act violate Articles 14 and 15 (equality and non-discrimination based on sex)?
- Is the father automatically the only natural guardian?
- Can a mother act as a natural guardian during the father's lifetime?
Arguments
Arguments by Petitioner (Githa Hariharan)
- The law treated mothers as inferior guardians, violating gender equality.
- Both parents share equal responsibility and emotional bonds with a child.
- The phrase “after him” in Section 6 should not mean after his death, but rather in situations where it serves the child’s best interest.
Arguments by Respondents (RBI & Union of India)
- The section reflected traditional family structure where fathers historically managed legal affairs.
- The law did not prevent mothers from becoming guardians — it only gave priority to fathers.
Judgment
The Supreme Court interpreted Section 6 in a modern and gender-equal context and held:
- The phrase “after him” does not mean after the father’s death.
- The mother can also be a natural guardian during the father’s lifetime, depending on the welfare of the child.
- Parental responsibility is joint, and gender cannot determine guardianship rights.
Therefore, the Court recognized mothers as equally eligible natural guardians.
Ratio Decidendi
- Guardianship must serve the welfare of the child — not gender hierarchy.
- Section 6 must be interpreted to treat mothers and fathers as equal natural guardians, unless circumstances suggest otherwise.
Significance of the Case
- This judgment strengthened gender equality in personal laws.
- It became a precedent for equal parental rights and recognition of both parents’ roles in a child’s life.
- The ruling modernized guardianship law to align with constitutional values.
The decision in Githa Hariharan v. RBI stands as a milestone in Indian legal history. It shattered the outdated belief that fathers alone are natural decision-makers for children. By recognizing mothers as equal guardians, the Supreme Court upheld both constitutional equality and the best interest of the child.
This case continues to guide courts wherever parental rights, guardianship, and gender equality intersect — ensuring that parenting in law mirrors parenting in real life: shared, equal, and child-centered.