+
 
For the best experience, open
m.thewire.in
on your mobile browser or Download our App.

'Highly Objectionable', Says Supreme Court on Patna HC's Remarks That Widow Has no Use of Make-Up

The Patna High Court remarked that the make-up articles could not have belonged to the woman as she was a widow as there was no need for her to put on make-up.
The Supreme Court of India building. Photo: Wikimedia Commons
Support Free & Independent Journalism

Good evening, we need your help!!

Since May 2015, The Wire has been committed to the truth and presenting you with journalism that is fearless, truthful, and independent. Over the years there have been many attempts to throttle our reporting by way of lawsuits, FIRs and other strong arm tactics. It is your support that has kept independent journalism and free press alive in India.

If we raise funds from 2500 readers every month we will be able to pay salaries on time and keep our lights on. What you get is fearless journalism in your corner. It is that simple.

Contributions as little as ₹ 200 a month or ₹ 2500 a year keeps us going. Think of it as a subscription to the truth. We hope you stand with us and support us.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday (September 25) said that sweeping remarks made by the Patna High Court that a widow does not need to wear make-up are “highly objectionable”.

The remarks came while the Supreme Court was hearing a case of abduction and murder of a woman over a property dispute, reported LiveLaw.

While witnesses related to the deceased had said that she was residing in the house at the time of the incident and subsequently the police had found make-up articles. It was found that the articles belonged to another woman residing in the house.

It was at this juncture that the Patna High Court remarked that the make-up articles could not have belonged to the woman as she was a widow as there was no need for her to put on make-up.

“In our opinion, the observation of the High Court is not only legally untenable but also highly objectionable. A sweeping observation of this nature is not commensurate with the sensitivity and neutrality expected from a court of law, specifically when the same is not made out from any evidence on record,” observed the bench of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma, taking objection of the remarks made by the Patna High Court.

Make a contribution to Independent Journalism
facebook twitter