In a significant move, the Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside the Allahabad High Court's judgments, which held that the definition of family doesn't include a married daughter for the purpose of compassionate appointment.
A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe held that it is in agreement with all the judgments of the Bombay High Court, Karnataka High Court and Calcutta High Court, which said that marital status can't constitute a valid ground for denying the welfare measure to an otherwise eligible daughter.
It held that this exclusion violates Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Indian Constitution: "The object of allotment under the dependent quota is to provide immediate succour to the family of a deceased dealer facing financial hardship. The relevant considerations are dependency, financial need, residence, and the ability of the applicant to discharge the obligations attached to the dealership. Marital status bears no rational nexus to any of these considerations."
The judgment authored by Justice Aradhe states that the exclusion is based on the premise that a married daughter ceases to be a member of the family. Such an assumption, however, is not constitutionally permissible. The bench said that marriage neither extinguishes the bond between a daughter and her parental family nor furnishes a valid basis to presume absence of dependency. Added to this, the Court remarked that such disability is not extended to married sons and therefore, this exclusion is founded upon gender-based stereotypes that a daughter, upon marriage, becomes a member of another family.
This case arises from a reference by a single Judge of the Allahabad High Court to the Supreme Court on whether claims of married daughter for compassionate appointment can be denied while no such disability is attached to the married sons. In this case, the petitioner, a married daughter, approached the Allahabad High Court for a license as a fair price shop dealer on compassionate grounds. She challenged a 2019 Government Order No. 6 of the Uttar Pradesh government, which by necessary inclusion of unmarried, legally separated, and widowed daughters, excluded married daughters from the definition of 'family'.
To briefly state, after marriage, she continued to reside in the same village as her family, took care of four sisters, including one disabled sister. She ran a fair price shop with her mother. After her mother died, the petitioner applied for a license, which was denied to her. The Single judge of the High Court considered the precedents before the Court.
Follow us
