The Chhattisgarh High Court recently emphasized the need to eliminate "bias linked to skin tone" while affirming a family court's decision to reject a man's plea for divorce. The husband alleged "cruelty," citing abandonment by his spouse. However, the court sided with the wife, who detailed being subjected to humiliation and eviction from her home due to her darker skin tone.

The court then came down strongly on the man, who got married in 2005, emphasizing that its judgment in this case couldn't serve as encouragement for fostering a discriminatory mindset based on skin colour.

The division bench of Justice Gautam Bhaduri and Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari emphasized the necessity for a shift in the household dialogue concerning skin tone, advocating for a change that doesn't endorse a preference for fairness.

The court also cited studies highlighting the significance of skin color in the selection of life partners and referenced the ongoing discourse regarding "fairness creams." In 2020, there was an amendment to the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act that mandated a five-year jail term for advertisements promoting fair skin, contributing to the longstanding debate on this matter. 

"The study further indicates... dark-skinned (women) were rated lower than their counterparts, and the majority of skin-lightening cosmetics target women. They are likely to portray a dark-skinned woman as under-confident and insecure... unable to secure success in life," the court noted.

"Therefore, the incentive cannot be given to a husband to promote such mind set of the society for preference of light skin over dark..." the court ruled, adding, "... we are of the view that no ground of cruelty, or desertion, has been made out by the husband to get the decree of divorce..."