The Supreme Court has ruled that married daughters cannot be excluded from the definition of 'family' for the purpose of compassionate appointment, declaring such exclusion as manifestly arbitrary, unjustified, and constitutionally untenable.
Constitutional Violation
A Bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe stated that the exclusion is incompatible with the constitutional guarantee of equality and perpetuates historical notions of gender inequality that the Constitution seeks to eradicate. The court emphasized that marital status is irrelevant to dependency, and excluding married daughters reinforces gender stereotypes in violation of Article 14 (right to equality) and Article 15 (right to non-discrimination).
Case Background
The order came on an appeal filed by Kulsum Nisha, a married daughter of a deceased woman fair price shop dealer. She challenged the Allahabad High Court's March 2025 order, which had rejected her claim for compassionate appointment as a fair price shop dealer. The High Court had upheld a 2019 rule under the Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016, which excluded married daughters from the definition of 'family'.
Court's Observations
Writing the judgment, Justice Aradhe noted that dependency is not a matter of gender but a question of fact, and cannot be conclusively determined by marital status alone. The court observed that the impugned provision proceeds on the assumption that upon marriage, a daughter ceases to be a member of or dependent upon her parental family. Such an assumption is constitutionally impermissible. Marriage neither extinguishes the bond between a daughter and her parental family nor furnishes a valid basis to presume absence of dependency. Contemporary social realities demonstrate that many married daughters continue to reside with, support, or remain dependent upon their parents.
Discriminatory Classification
The court highlighted that a son continues to remain within the fold of the family irrespective of his marital status, whereas a daughter is excluded solely because she is married. This 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. The Bench concluded that the exclusion of married daughters from the definition of 'family' fails the test of reasonable classification and is manifestly arbitrary. The distinction created by the government order lacks any intelligible differentia having a rational nexus with the object of the scheme.
Directions to Authorities
The Supreme Court directed the Uttar Pradesh authorities to allot a fair price shop to petitioner Kulsum Nisha within four weeks. Nisha had applied for running the fair price shop after her mother's death in March 2024. She continued to reside with her mother and four sisters even after her marriage and supported the family. The court also directed the UP authorities to henceforth include married daughters under the definition of 'family' for compassionate appointment purposes.
The ruling marks a significant step towards gender equality, ensuring that married daughters are not discriminated against in matters of compassionate appointment based on outdated gender stereotypes.
