The Supreme Court on Tuesday held that a married daughter cannot be excluded from consideration for compassionate appointment or allotment merely because of her marital status.
The Bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe set aside contrary judgments of the Allahabad High Court and ruled that such exclusion was discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution.
The Court held that marital status has no rational connection with the object of compassionate appointment or allotment under welfare schemes intended to provide immediate financial relief to the family of a deceased person.
The Bench observed that the purpose of allotment under the dependent quota was to provide economic support to the family of a deceased dealer facing financial hardship. Therefore, the relevant considerations were dependency, financial need, residence and the applicant’s ability to discharge the obligations attached to the dealership. Marital status did not have any nexus with these factors and cannot be used as a ground for exclusion, it noted.
Writing the judgment, Justice Aradhe held that the exclusion of married daughters was founded on the outdated assumption that a daughter ceased to be a member of her parental family after marriage. Such a presumption was constitutionally impermissible and contrary to the guarantee of equality.
The Bench emphasised that marriage did not sever the relationship between a daughter and her natal family, nor did it automatically eliminate financial or emotional dependence. The Court further noted that no similar disqualification existed for married sons. Consequently, the exclusion of married daughters was based on gender stereotypes that viewed a woman as belonging exclusively to her husband’s family after marriage.
The Court held that such a classification amounted to discrimination on the ground of sex and therefore violated Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. It also observed that constitutional principles required the State to eliminate gender-based barriers that restricted women’s access to welfare benefits and public opportunities.
The case arose from a reference made by a single-judge Bench of the Allahabad High Court seeking clarity on whether a married daughter’s claim for compassionate appointment or allotment could be rejected when no comparable restriction applied to married sons.
The appellant, a married daughter, had sought allotment of a fair price shop licence on compassionate grounds after the death of her mother. She challenged Clause 2(p) of the Uttar Pradesh Government Order dated August 5, 2019, which defined family to include unmarried, widowed and legally separated daughters, while effectively excluding married daughters from consideration.
As per the case, the petitioner continued to reside in the same village even after marriage. She was responsible for the care of her four sisters, including one sister with a disability, and had been assisting her mother in running the fair price shop. Following her mother’s death, she applied for allotment of the shop under the compassionate category. Her application was rejected solely on the grounds that she was married.
While examining the matter, the Allahabad High Court took note of conflicting judicial precedents on the issue. It referred to the Division Bench judgment in Vimal Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015), where the Court had struck down the word “unmarried” from the definition of “family” under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974. In that case, the Court had held that excluding married daughters from compassionate appointment was unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 15.
However, the High Court also considered later decisions, including Kusumlata v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021), in which a single-judge Bench upheld the validity of the 2019 Government Order and held that the reasoning adopted in Vimal Srivastava could not be extended to fair price shop allotments. The Court in Kusumlata case concluded that the use of the expression “unmarried daughter” was not discriminatory and that the Government Order could not be interpreted in the same manner as the Dying-in-Harness Rules.
A similar view was subsequently taken by the Allahabad High Court in Saida Begum v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023), creating a divergence in judicial opinion.
The referring judge also examined decisions of other High Courts that had adopted a different approach. The Bombay High Court in Ranjana Murlidhar Anerao v. State of Maharashtra (2014) had declared unconstitutional the exclusion of married daughters from the definition of family under a government resolution governing fair price shop licences. The Bombay High Court held that such exclusion violated Articles 14, 15 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Similar views were expressed by the Gujarat High Court and other High Courts.
Noting the conflicting legal positions, the Allahabad High Court referred the issue to the Supreme Court for an authoritative determination.
The Supreme Court ultimately endorsed the reasoning adopted by the Bombay High Court and other High Courts and expressly disapproved the contrary view taken by the Allahabad High Court.
On a purposive interpretation of Clause 2(p) of the Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) framework, the Court held that the expression “daughter” includes a married daughter, provided she furnishes a dependency certificate, submits no-objection certificates from other adult family members of the deceased dealer, is a local resident and satisfies all other eligibility requirements prescribed under the Government Order.
The Bench concluded that a married daughter cannot be denied compassionate allotment solely because of her marital status and that such exclusion is arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the orders rejecting the petitioner’s claim and directed the competent authorities to issue a valid allotment order for the fair price shop within four weeks.
The Court also placed on record its appreciation for Advocate Rukhmini Bobde, who assisted the Bench as amicus curiae in the matter.
The post Supreme Court entitles married daughters to compassionate appointment, strikes down discriminatory exclusion appeared first on India Legal.