State PCS

Edit Template
Edit Template

Justice M Fathima Beevi: Women of the Indian judiciary

Justice M Fathima Beevi

On October 6, 1989, M Fathima Beevi, a quiet woman from a village in Pathanamthitta in Kerala, made history when she became the first woman in Asia to become a Judge of the Supreme Court.

Who is M Fathima Beevi?

M. Fathima Beevi (born April 30, 1927) is a former justice of the Indian Supreme Court. She was the first Muslim woman to be appointed to any of the country’s higher judiciaries and the first female judge to join India’s Supreme Court when she was appointed to the apex court in 1989.

  • She served as a National Human Rights Commission member after leaving the court, and from 1997 to 2001 she presided as governor of the Indian state of Tamil Nadu.
  • She was one of the five female students in her law school class, which later decreased to three. She passed the Bar Council of India examination after earning her law degree in 1950, being the first woman to do so. She then won the Bar Council gold medal, which was the first of her legendary accomplishments.

Early Life

Fathima Beevi was born on April 30, 1927, in Pathanamthitta, Travancore (now Kerala, India), to Khadeja Bibi and Annaveetil Meera Sahib, a government employee. She was the eldest among two brothers and six sisters. In 1943, she graduated from Pathanamthitta’s Catholic High School after completing her education. She spent six years in Trivandrum, where she moved to pursue her higher studies. She earned a B.S. in science from University College in Thiruvananthapuram before enrolling in the Government Law College in the same city to pursue a legal education.

Initially, Beevi wanted to pursue a career in the science field, but her father persuaded her to pursue law instead, perhaps inspired by the success of Ms. Anna Chandy, the first woman to serve as a judge on India’s High Court and the first female judge in the country, who was employed close to their home. In her law school class, which eventually had just three women left, Fatima Beevi was one of only five female students. Nevertheless, this did not discourage her; after earning her law degree in 1950, she took the Bar Council of India test and won first place, earning the Bar Council gold medal, the first of her historic accomplishments.

Important Judgments

M Fathima Beevi presided over several case hearings during the course of her long and famous career and was known for her thoughtful judgment. A few of the significant cases Fathima Beevi presided over are listed below:

  • The case was regulating statutory authority. The case was significant because it dealt with the welfare of the general public and how to safeguard it from the arbitrary authority that the state or its agents may exercise. According to Justice Fathima Beevi, citizens must be shielded from the excessive power that state authorities have over them. She also emphasized that the law of natural justice must be applied to limit the use of power (Scheduled Caste and Weaker Section Welfare Assn. v. the State of Karnataka, (1991).
  • In this instance, the bench was required to render a decision about the constitutionality of a state law. Justice Fathima Beevi pointed out that the Court has the authority to examine the legality of any state law, even if doing so requires carrying out the instructions outlined in Article 39 of the Constitution (Assam Sillimanite Ltd. v. Union of India, (1992).
  • In this instance, Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code’s “necessary party” clause drew Justice Fathima Beevi’s attention to an essential point. The distinction between a “necessary party” and a “necessary witness” was made by Justice Fathima. Justice Beevi asserts that a witness is required if he has pertinent information regarding the issues at hand. A person must be bound by the outcome of the action and the issue to be resolved in order to qualify as a “necessary party.” What qualifies as a “necessary party” is determined by the individual’s need to be bound by the outcome and the fact that the issues in the action cannot be resolved without him or her being a party (Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, (1992).

Read Also: Why to choose Sociology optional for UPSC Exam

Demo Class/Enquiries

blog form

More Links
What's New
About
IAS NEXT is a topmost Coaching Institute offering guidance for Civil & Judicial services like UPSC, State PCS, PCS-J exams since more than 10 years.
Contact Us
Social Icon

Copyright ©  C S NEXT EDUCATION. All Rights Reserved