Who is Justice Fatima Beevi?

Justice M. Fathima Beevi's life and career stand as a testament to her unwavering commitment to justice, resilience in the face of societal norms, and groundbreaking contributions to the Indian legal system. She was born on 30^th April 1927, in Pathanamthitta, Travancore. She defied the constraints of her time, especially those imposed on women, to emerge as a legal luminary. She was the first woman to be appointed as a judge in the Supreme Court of India. She was also the first Muslim woman to be appointed at a higher judicial position. She died at the age of 96 on 23^rd November 2023.

How was the Career Journey of Justice Fatima Beevi?

• Justice Fatima Beevi pursued her law degree at the Government Law College in Thiruvananthapuram.
• She enrolled as an Advocate on 14^th November 1950.
• She was appointed the Munsiff in the Kerala Sub-ordinate Judicial Services in 1958.
• She was later promoted as the Sub-ordinate Judge, the Chief Judicial Magistrate and later to be a District & Sessions Judge in 1974.
• She was appointed as a Judicial Member of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in 1980.
• Later, she was elevated to be a Judge of Kerala High Court in 1983.
• She was then promoted as a Judge of SC her tenure in the SC was from 1989 to 1992.
• She has also extended her services to the nation as a member of the National Human Rights Commission.
• She has also served as a Governor of Tamil Nadu from 1997 to 2001.

What were the Notable Cases related to Justice Fatima Beevi?

• Mary Roy vs. State of Kerala (1986):
  • The case dealt with the right of women in father’s property.
  • Justice Fathima Beevi contributed to affirming the equal inheritance rights of women.
• Rattan Chand Hira Chand v. Askar Nawaz Jung (1991):
  • The court was dealing with Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (ICA) where the issue was whether a contract whereby one party is to assist another in recovering property and sharing proceeds by using is opposed to 'public policy'.
  • Justice Fatima Beevi held that “The consideration or object of an agreement is unlawful when the court regards it as opposed to public policy. If anything is done against public law or public policy that would be illegal in as much as the interest of the public would suffer in case a contract against public policy is permitted to stand.”
  • She further added that public policy is a principle of judicial interpretation founded on the current needs of the community. The law relating to public policy cannot remain immutable.
• Assam Sillimanite Ltd. v. Union of India (1992):
  • Constitutional validity of Assam Sillimanite Limited (Acquisition & Transfer of Refractory Plant) Act, 1976 was challenged.
  • Justice Fatima Beevi in this 2-judge bench judgment held that notwithstanding the declaration of the Legislature that any particular Act has been made to implement the directives specified in Article 39 of the Constitution of India, it would be open to the Court to ignore such declaration and to examine the constitutionality of the same.
  • She further stated that the declaration cannot be relied on as a clerk to protect the law bearing no relationship with the objectives mentioned in Article 39.
• Scheduled Caste & Weaker Section Welfare Assn. v. State of Karnataka (1997):
  • Justice Fatima Beevi in this case, while deciding the position of natural justice and use of arbitrary power, held that “It is one of the fundamental rules of our constitutional set-up that every citizen is protected against exercise of arbitrary authority by the State or its officers”.
  • She further added that if there is power to decide and determine to the prejudice of a person, duty to act judicially is implicit in the exercise of such power and the rule of natural justice operates in areas not covered by any law validly made.

What is the Notable View of Fatima Beevi on Women Participation in Judiciary?

• Justice Fatima Beevi while referring to the ratio of women in the judiciary said that “There are many women in the field now, both at the bar and in the bench. However, their participation is meagre. Their representation is not equal to men. It will take time for women to get equal representation in the judiciary.”