A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and NK Singh said patriarchy still shapes daily life in India despite decades of legal reform and economic progress. The Court said domestic abuse and extreme violence against women do not stand as isolated incidents. It said such acts reflect a diseased social order.
Supreme Court patriarchy ruling on domestic abuse
The Bench noted that many women still cannot fully access the constitutional promises of equality and the right to life, even nearly eight decades after Independence.
The Court also said rising literacy and economic growth have not changed power structures inside many homes. It noted that men still hold most authority within households. It added that society still expects women, including working women, to manage household chores.
The Bench said gender roles may not apply as rigidly in many urban areas now. Even so, it said patriarchy remains part of everyday life in rural and semi-urban settings. It noted that women’s autonomy often remains conditional and constrained there. It also said people still expect even earning women to manage the home, prepare meals, and complete other domestic work before and after work.
The case arose from an incident in October 2012 in Bundi, Rajasthan. Shankar had married Sugna Bai about a month earlier.
Sugna Bai left for her parental home because of Shankar’s heavy drinking and violent conduct. Shankar followed her there and demanded that she return at once to prepare fresh food for him.
After she returned and began cooking, an intoxicated Shankar assaulted her. He then poured kerosene on her, locked the room, and set her on fire. Neighbours and family members extinguished the flames and took her to hospital. Before she died of burn injuries four days later, she gave a dying declaration to a magistrate.
A trial court in Bundi convicted Shankar of murder in 2014 and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The Rajasthan High Court upheld that conviction in 2019. Shankar then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Before the top court, Shankar’s counsel challenged the dying declaration. She argued that the magistrate had not properly certified Sugna Bai’s mental condition. She also claimed that Sugna Bai’s parents had tutored her before she made the statement.
The Supreme Court rejected those arguments. The Bench found that the duty doctor had properly examined Sugna Bai and certified her fitness to make the statement. The judges also noted that some eyewitnesses turned hostile during trial. Even so, they said the medical evidence on burn injuries fully corroborated the dying declaration.
The Court concluded that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. It also held that Sugna Bai’s dying declaration remained reliable and trustworthy.
Before ending the judgment, the Court added a detailed postscript on the state of women’s rights in India. The judges pointed to the continued prevalence of dowry deaths. They also cited data showing that more than 4.48 lakh crimes against women were recorded in 2023.
The Bench then asked why society still exercises such deep control over women’s bodies, choices, and lives despite decades of laws, schemes, reforms, and judicial recognition of equality in workplaces, homes, personal relationships, and even the armed forces. It said perhaps only “We, the People of India” hold the answer.
Senior Advocate Kavita Vadia appeared for Shankar along with advocates Tabrez Ahmad, Syed Mehdi Imam and Syeda Aaliya Fatima. Advocates Divynk Panwar and Nidhi Jaswal represented the State.
Also read: Christian Michel extradition plea: Delhi HC rejects release bid
