New Delhi, June 3: In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court declared that excluding married daughters from compassionate appointments or benefits based on marital status is unconstitutional. The judgment came in the case of Kulsum Nisha, who had sought allotment of a fair price shop in Amethi, Uttar Pradesh, after the death of her mother, a dealer. Her application was rejected under a government order that excluded married daughters from the definition of "family."

A Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe held that such exclusion violates the constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination under Articles 14 and 15(1). The Court emphasized that dependency, financial need, residence, and capability to manage the dealership are the relevant criteria—not marital status.

The bench observed that while married sons remain eligible, married daughters are excluded solely due to gender stereotypes. “Marriage neither extinguishes the bond between a daughter and her parental family nor furnishes a valid basis to presume absence of dependency,” the Court stated. It added that dependency is a factual matter and cannot be conclusively determined by marital status alone.

Rejecting the Uttar Pradesh government’s argument that married daughters may not meet local residence requirements, the Court clarified that residence is an independent eligibility criterion to be assessed case by case. A blanket exclusion of married daughters, it said, is arbitrary and discriminatory.

Also Read: Muslim Side Moves Supreme Court Against MP High Court Verdict Recognising Bhojshala As Hindu Temple

The ruling also approved similar progressive judgments from High Courts in Allahabad, Bombay, Karnataka, and Calcutta, while overruling contrary decisions. Applying the doctrine of purposive construction, the Court directed that the term “daughters” in relevant provisions must include married daughters, provided they establish dependency and meet other conditions.

In Kulsum Nisha’s case, the Court noted that she continued to live in the same village after marriage, assisted her mother in running the shop, and cared for her sisters, including a visually impaired sibling. Since her claim was rejected solely on marital status, the Court quashed the orders of the Allahabad High Court, Deputy Commissioner, and SDM, directing allotment of the shop to her within four weeks.

This judgment marks a significant step toward dismantling entrenched gender stereotypes and ensuring equal rights for women in compassionate appointments.