(a) "The Constitutional courts through their judicial activism have made substantial contribution in protecting women against…

Role of Judicial Activism and PIL in Protecting Women

The evolution of Public Interest Litigation (PIL), pioneered in cases like S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) by relaxing the traditional rule of locus standi, transformed Constitutional courts into accessible forums for vindicating women’s rights. In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), the Supreme Court utilized PIL to address workplace sexual harassment. Operating in a statutory vacuum, the Court drew upon Articles 14, 19, and 21, alongside international conventions like CEDAW, to formulate binding guidelines under Article 141, which later formed the foundation of the POSH Act, 2013.

Judicial activism further dismantled patriarchal norms in Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017), where the Court set aside the practice of Talaq-e-biddat (instant triple talaq) as unconstitutional on the ground of manifest arbitrariness under Article 14. Similarly, in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018) (Sabarimala Case), the Court eliminated gender-based exclusion by ruling that biological characteristics cannot form the basis for denying women entry into places of worship, subordinating exclusionary customs to the guarantees of Articles 15, 21, and 25. Following the 2012 Nirbhaya case, public interest interventions prompted the incorporation of the Justice J.S. Verma Committee recommendations into the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, ensuring rigorous institutional responses to gender-based violence.

Status and Effects of a Minor's Agreement

Under Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a person who has not attained majority is incompetent to contract. In Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903), the Privy Council settled the causal effect of this incompetence, ruling that a minor’s agreement is void ab initio rather than merely voidable. Because no contract comes into existence, there are no reciprocal contractual obligations: the rule of estoppel under Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act cannot operate to validate the agreement, nor can a minor be compelled to make restitution under Sections 64 or 65.

However, statutory mechanisms prevent injustice through quasi-contractual obligations. Under Section 68 of the Act, if a minor is supplied with "necessaries" suited to their condition in life, the supplier is entitled to reimbursement solely out of the minor’s estate, with no personal liability attaching to the minor. As established in Nash v. Inman (1908), the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that the goods were not only suitable to the minor's station but also necessary for their actual requirements at the time. Furthermore, contracts made exclusively for the minor's benefit, such as contracts of apprenticeship or beneficial service without imposing onerous personal obligations, remain enforceable in the minor's interest.

Bearer Instruments versus Instruments Payable to Order

The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, classifies instruments based on the method prescribed for their negotiation under Sections 46, 47, and 48:

Bearer Instruments: Under Section 13, an instrument is payable to bearer when it is expressed to be so payable or when the only or last endorsement is an endorsement in blank. By virtue of Section 47, a bearer instrument is negotiated by mere physical delivery. Possession alone creates the presumption of ownership, enabling swift commercial circulation without formal execution.

Order Instruments: Under Section 13, an instrument is payable to order when it is expressed to be payable to a particular person, without words prohibiting transfer. Under Section 48 read with Section 46, such an instrument can only be negotiated by valid endorsement (signature of the holder) followed by delivery.

This distinction governs the acquisition of title and the status of a Holder in Due Course (HDC) under Section 9. For a bearer instrument, a bona fide transferee taking it for consideration by simple delivery acquires an untainted title free from defects in prior title. Conversely, for an order instrument, a complete and unbroken chain of genuine endorsements is a mandatory condition precedent for a person to claim the status and protections of an HDC.

Thus, while judicial activism and statutory interpretation protect fundamental rights and vulnerable parties like minors, strict statutory mechanisms in commercial law maintain certainty, speed, and integrity in transactional relationships.