Explain the constitutional perspectives of Gender Justice with the help of relevant Constitutional Provisions and case laws…

The constitutional perspective on gender justice envisions transformative equality—shifting from formal non-discrimination to substantive empowerment, ensuring that structural inequalities based on gender are actively dismantled.

Foundational Constitutional Architecture

The Preamble establishes the baseline by securing "justice—social, economic and political," "equality of status and of opportunity," and "fraternity" to uphold individual dignity.

Fundamental Rights: Balancing Formal and Substantive Equality Article 14 guarantees equality before the law, while Article 15(1) and Article 16 prohibit discrimination on grounds of sex in general matters and public employment. Crucially, Article 15(3) introduces protective discrimination, empowering the State to make special provisions for women to overcome historical disadvantage.

Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) Part IV directs state policy toward socio-economic gender equity:

• Article 39(a) mandates securing adequate means of livelihood equally for men and women.
• Article 39(d) enforces equal pay for equal work.
• Articles 39(e) and 42 mandate protection of women workers' health and just conditions of work, including maternity relief.

Political Empowerment Articles 243D and 243T mandate a minimum one-third reservation for women in Panchayats and Municipalities, a framework recently expanded to Parliament and State Assemblies via the Constitution (106th Amendment) Act.

Judicial Evolution through Transformative Constitutionalism The Supreme Court has expanded gender justice by invoking constitutional morality over patriarchal norms:

• Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997): Read gender justice into Articles 14, 19, and 21 to create guidelines against workplace sexual harassment.
• Shayara Bano (2017): Invalidated Triple Talaq under Article 14 as arbitrary and violative of personal dignity.
• Joseph Shine (2018): Decriminalised adultery, holding that laws treating women as marital property violate Articles 14 and 21.
• Sabarimala Case (2018): Ruled that biological attributes like menstruation cannot be grounds for religious exclusion under Article 25.
• Navtej Singh Johar (2018): Expanded gender justice beyond the binary by upholding LGBTQ+ rights under Article 15(1).

Way Forward To bridge persistent implementation gaps—including marital rape exemptions and the low female labour force participation rate—constitutional guarantees must be matched by effective institutional support, transforming de jure constitutional justice into de facto societal reality.