GUWAHATI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday, June 2, ruled that married daughters cannot be excluded from compassionate appointments solely on the basis of their marital status, declaring it unconstitutional.
ALSO READ: Kerala Horror: Toddler Dies After Months of Alleged Abuse by Mother’s Live-in Partner; Both Arrested
A bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe set aside earlier judgments of the Allahabad High Court, which had held that married daughters do not fall within the definition of “family” for the purpose of compassionate appointments.
The apex court observed that denying welfare benefits to married daughters while extending the same to married sons amounts to gender-based discrimination and violates Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution.
“The object of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate relief to the family of a deceased employee or dealer facing financial hardship. Dependency, financial need, residence, and the ability of the applicant to fulfil responsibilities are the relevant considerations. Marital status has no rational connection with any of these factors,” the bench noted.
In the judgment delivered by Justice Alok Aradhe, the court rejected the assumption that a daughter ceases to belong to her parental family after marriage. It stated that marriage neither severs familial ties nor automatically ends a daughter’s dependency or responsibilities toward her family.
The court further pointed out that no such restriction exists for married sons, making the exclusion of married daughters rooted in outdated gender stereotypes.
The case originated from a reference made by a single judge of the Allahabad High Court, seeking clarity from the Supreme Court on whether a married daughter’s claim for compassionate appointment could legally be denied when married sons face no similar disqualification.
The petitioner in the case had approached the Allahabad High Court after being denied a fair price shop dealership license on compassionate grounds under a 2019 Uttar Pradesh government order. The order recognised unmarried, widowed, and legally separated daughters as part of the “family” but excluded married daughters.
According to the petitioner, despite being married, she continued to live in the same village as her parental family and cared for her four sisters, including one who is disabled. She had also assisted her mother in running the fair price shop. However, following her mother’s death, her application for the dealership license was rejected solely because she was married.