The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that a dependent married daughter cannot be excluded from the definition of 'family' and is entitled to seek employment or allotment of a ration shop if any of her parents died in harness. A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe struck down a provision of a Uttar Pradesh government order relating to allotment of Public Distribution System (PDS) shops on dependent quota, stating it violated the constitutional doctrine of equality.
Court's Ruling on Marital Status
Writing the judgment, Justice Aradhe said marital status has no rational nexus with the status of dependency or the objective of compassionate appointment or allotment of ration shops, which is to help the family overcome financial hardship caused by the death of the breadwinner. The bench emphasized that marriage neither extinguishes the bond between a daughter and her parental family nor provides a valid basis to presume absence of dependency.
Gender-Based Stereotype Struck Down
The UP government order included 'unmarried, legally separated and widowed daughters' as dependents but excluded married daughters. The Supreme Court said the order should include dependent married daughters. 'Contemporary social realities demonstrate that many married daughters continue to reside with, support or remain dependent upon their parents,' the bench observed. It questioned why married daughters were excluded when married sons were not, calling the distinction a gender-based stereotype.
'The distinction is founded upon a gender-based stereotype that a daughter, upon marriage, becomes a member of another family and loses all ties with her natal family. Such a presumption is incompatible with the constitutional guarantee of equality and perpetuates historical notions of gender inequality which the Constitution seeks to eradicate,' the bench stated.
Dependency a Question of Fact
The court noted that there may be sons who are not dependent on the family despite being included within the definition. 'Dependency is a question of fact and cannot be conclusively determined by reference to marital status alone,' the justices added. Accepting arguments from amicus curiae Rukmini Bobde, the bench said the impugned provision proceeds on an assumption that is constitutionally impermissible. 'A blanket exclusion of all married daughters cannot be justified on speculative assumptions. Constitutional adjudication cannot be founded on presumptions that are overbroad and disconnected from lived realities,' the bench concluded.
