Nurturing or Burdening?: Campus Mothers, Article 14, and Internalised Patriarchy

Authored by Vedika Kulkarni & Samyak Deshpande, 3rd-year law students at Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai. 

Introduction

When policies are made with good intentions but based on outdated assumptions, they risk doing more harm than good. The Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Kharagpur’s recent “Campus Mothers” initiative is a striking example, intended to provide emotional support on campus. Still, it limits the role to women alone, ultimately reinforcing gender stereotypes. By assigning care exclusively to women, the initiative not only sidelines men from participating in emotional spaces but also reinforces the notion that empathy and nurturing are only feminine traits. In doing so, it misses an opportunity to display true gender inclusivity within one of India’s biggest educational institutions.

While welfare policies aim to support students, when they rely on gendered presumptions, they can still end up violating the equality code under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. This article explores how the well-intentioned ‘Campus Mothers’ initiative by IIT Kharagpur violates constitutional principles by institutionalising gender stereotypes in the garb of emotional support.

Internalised Patriarchy, Emotional Labour, and Gendered Harm

The quiet reinforcement of patriarchy

To quote the words of the director of IIT while talking about the initiative:

“Many of these women have experienced motherhood themselves. Some have grown-up children who may now be living abroad or otherwise independent. Having gone through motherhood, they understand the unique challenges children face. While it’s often said that Indian parents tend to over-parent, it’s unrealistic to expect students to suddenly adjust in their first year of college after being closely monitored until Class 12.”

This statement is strongly problematic in how it naturalises gender roles. It merges caregiving with motherhood, implying that women, by virtue of being mothers, are inherently suited to ‘nurture’, as opposed to men. As Simone de Beauvoir wrote in The Second Sex, “One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.” Here as well, the Campus Mothers initiative enshrines this regressive idea that womanhood is synonymous with caregiving into the institutional culture of a premier institute, which perpetuates gendered division of labour under the guise of student welfare. 

This is not just about representation; it is about how institutions like IIT, which shape the minds and social attitudes of future leaders, validate regressive stereotypes. This becomes pertinent because when such prestigious colleges adopt frameworks that lean on outdated gender perceptions, they not only normalise these roles but also let them further into the societal consciousness. Now, other colleges will see this initiative and its potential success as an indicator to reinforce those same gender roles, perhaps through similar initiatives limited only to females. The harm lies in the silence, in the failure to question why emotional labour remains feminised, and most importantly, why empathy isn't framed as a shared human responsibility.

How does it affect both genders equally?

This piece would be incomplete without mentioning Bell Hooks, who, in her seminal work Understanding Patriarchy, very rightfully argues that patriarchy is not simply a system that oppresses women, but it is a system that dehumanises men as well. Hooks emphasises that from a young age, boys are taught to suppress emotions, associating vulnerability with femininity, and are rewarded for emotional detachment. This emotional repression, Hook contends, creates men who are disconnected from their own feelings and from meaningful human connection.

Similarly, the initiative seems to be yet another episode of institutionalised emotional burden being placed on women. Casting them as the default ‘caregivers’ responsible for emotional support.. This prima facie analysis very rightly sheds light on how such initiatives perpetuate gender stereotypes and expectations while reinforcing the gendered norms. However, a closer look reveals that this harm does not really stop at women; rather, it quietly extends to men as well. By formally excluding men from participating in such caregiving roles, which require emotional intelligence, the initiative sends an implicit message: that empathy, care and emotional labour are incompatible or inconsistent with masculinity. It, very systematically, deprives men of the opportunity to engage in these vital aspects of community-building. This binary framing perpetually restricts the emotional development of men and also deprives society of a more inclusive system of emotional support. Hence, what may appear at first to be an initiative that disadvantages women, in fact, sustains a system that is damaging to all.

Articles 14, 15, and Constitutional Morality

The Unreasonable Intelligible Differentia

From a constitutional standpoint, this initiative, even though not a law and is voluntary in nature, goes precisely against the constitutional articles and morality. The classification embedded in the initiative, which allows only women to volunteer and thereby restricts men from doing so, fails to satisfy the constitutional test of a permissible classification under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952)  and upheld in EP Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974), laid down the twofold test of permissible classification:

1. The classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia, and

2. This differentia must have a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the statute or policy.

The Campus Mothers initiative, by restricting participation to women staff only, creates a classification based on sex that does not meet either prong of this test. 

First, the intelligible differentia, biological sex or presumed emotional capacity based on gender, is inherently flawed. In Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India (2007), the Court struck down a provision prohibiting women from working in bars, holding that laws based on gendered assumptions, however well-intentioned, perpetuate inequality and violate constitutional morality. Applying this to IIT’s initiative, the belief that women are naturally better suited to provide care and emotional support amounts to a stereotype, not a valid differentia not to allow men into the initiative. As Justice Dipak Mishra rightly observed in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), “constitutional morality prevails over societal morality,” which applies especially where policies are based on archaic constructs of gender roles.

Second, the differentia bears no rational nexus with the objective of the initiative, which is providing emotional support to students. Emotional intelligence, empathy, and caregiving are human attributes, not gendered ones. By excluding men from the ‘campus mothers’, the initiative wears away its own motive and violates the very essence of Article 14’s promise of substantive equality. As observed in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014), the Constitution assures equality, dignity and autonomy for all individuals, regardless of gender identity or expression. This logic extends to institutional roles that assign responsibility or deny opportunity based solely on sex.

Inconsistency with Constitutional Principles

The classification is not only arbitrary but also exclusionary. Article 15(1) prohibits discrimination on grounds of sex. While Article 15(3) allows affirmative action for women and children, it cannot be used to inflict additional burden on women or reinforce gender roles, as clarified in Rajesh Kumar Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2005). A classification that operates under the pretext of empowerment but leads to restricting choice and perpetuating stereotypes fails constitutional validity.

Thus, the initiative’s sex-based classification lacks a constitutionally valid intelligible differentia and fails the nexus test, making it not only unreasonable but also violative of the foundational principles of equality enshrined in Article 14 and even 15.

Institutional Responsibility & Constitutional Morality

Public institutions, such as IITs, which are largely backed by the state, are not just administrative bodies but rather extensions of governance. As such, they are not merely expected to avoid violating fundamental rights, but they also carry a positive obligation to promote and uphold constitutional values in every policy and initiative. The Campus Mothers initiative, when viewed through this lens, is not a neutral welfare initiative but instead, a value statement about gender roles. And when that value statement is regressive or stereotypical, it is contended that it offends constitutional morality.

The doctrine of constitutional morality emphasises that institutions must not be guided by prevailing social morality, which may be exclusionary or patriarchal, but by constitutional principles of equality, dignity, autonomy, and non-discrimination. In Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018), the Court further held that even non-statutory decisions made by public authorities must conform to constitutional morality. Therefore, initiatives like “Campus Mothers,” though not statutory, must still pass constitutional muster. When such initiatives rely on gender-based assumptions to structure roles within the campus, they perpetuate precisely the kind of societal morality that constitutional morality seeks to displace.

Conclusion: Closing Thoughts

From a theoretical standpoint, this initiative contradicts the feminist jurisprudential approach, which critiques formal equality in favour of substantive equality. Catherine MacKinnon, in her critique of the ‘difference’ model, argues that recognising differences without interrogating the power structures behind them leads to further entrenchment of inequality (Feminism Unmodified, 1987). Her argument underscores how IIT’s initiative, while framed as welfare, entrenches structural power imbalances by normalising caregiving as a ‘women’s role.’ Furthermore, under the anti-subordination principle articulated by Owen Fiss, the state must not reinforce hierarchies that keep certain groups, here, women, locked into traditional roles. The Campus Mothers initiative, by formalising caregiving as a female duty, does precisely this.

Furthermore, Article 5(a) of CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women) mandates state parties to take all appropriate steps to “modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudices.” By coming up with an initiative that reinforces the stereotype of women as natural caregivers, a state-run institution like IIT Kharagpur risks violating not just domestic constitutional mandates but also weakening India’s international promises. 

Ultimately, the IITs, with their visibility and repute, have a responsibility to ensure that their institutional culture is aligned with the spirit of the Constitution. As the Court held in Anuj Garg (supra), the State cannot legitimise the gendered construction of work or perpetuate ‘protective discrimination’ under the ambit of welfare. The same logic applies here. Benevolence rooted in stereotype is not empowerment but is constitutional regression.