On Monday, the Supreme Court sought the Union Government's response to a petition challenging Section 64 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the grounds that it discriminated against women by making female members of a family incapable of accepting summons on behalf of the person summoned.

A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli issued notice and directed service on Attorney-General of India R Venkataramani's office. Section 64 of the CrPC deals with summons service when the person concerned cannot be located.

The counsel for petitioner Kush Kalra contended that the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, required summons to be served on any adult member of the defendant's family, regardless of gender, which was discriminatory against women.

According to Section 64 of the CrPC, "Where the person summoned cannot, by the exercise of due diligence, be found, the summons may be served by leaving one of the duplicates for him with some adult male member of his family residing with him."

The petition also claimed that the CrPC did not believe an adult female member of the family was capable and competent to receive summons. It went on to say that excluding female family members from receiving summons on behalf of the summoned person violated their rights to equality guaranteed by Articles 14 and 15 of the Indian Constitution, their right to know guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, and their right to dignity guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Case Title: Kush Kalra vs Union of India

Diary No: 32422 – 2022