Introduction

In a significant judgment advancing gender equality, the Supreme Court has held that a married daughter cannot be excluded from consideration for compassionate appointment or similar welfare benefits merely because of her marital status. The Court set aside contrary judgments of the Allahabad High Court and reaffirmed that such exclusion violates the constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination.

The decision came in Kulsum Nisha v. State of Uttar Pradesh, where the Court emphasized that marriage cannot be a valid ground to deny a welfare measure to an otherwise eligible daughter.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Kulsum Nisha, sought a fair price shop licence on compassionate grounds following the death of her mother, who operated the shop. Although she was married, she continued to reside in the same village, actively assisted her mother in running the shop, and took responsibility for caring for her physically disabled sister.

Her application was rejected under a 2019 Government Order issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh, which excluded married daughters from the definition of “family” for the purpose of compassionate allotment of fair price shop licences.

Aggrieved by this exclusion, the appellant approached the Allahabad High Court.

Conflicting Judicial Views

The matter involved conflicting precedents regarding whether married daughters could be excluded from welfare schemes based solely on marital status.

Vimal Srivastava Case (2015)

In Vimal Srivastava v. State of U.P., the Allahabad High Court examined the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974. The Court held that excluding married daughters from the definition of “family” was unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. Consequently, the word “unmarried” was struck down from the relevant provision.

Kusumlata and Saida Begum Cases

Subsequently, in Kusumlata v. State of U.P. (2021) and Saida Begum v. State of U.P. (2023), the Allahabad High Court took a different view. These decisions upheld the validity of the 2019 Government Order and held that excluding married daughters from the definition of family was not discriminatory.

Views of Other High Courts

Several High Courts adopted a more progressive interpretation.

The Bombay High Court, in Ranjana Murlidhar Anerao v. State of Maharashtra (2014), held that excluding married daughters from the definition of family under a licensing scheme violated Articles 14, 15, and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

A similar position was adopted by the Gujarat High Court, which recognised that marital status alone could not determine eligibility for welfare benefits.

Due to these conflicting judicial opinions, the matter was referred to the Supreme Court for authoritative determination.

Issues Before the Supreme Court

The principal issue before the Court was:

Whether a married daughter can be excluded from the definition of “family” and denied compassionate benefits solely because she is married, while no such restriction applies to married sons.

Supreme Court’s Decision

A Bench comprising Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe answered the question in favour of married daughters.

The Court agreed with the views expressed by the Bombay and Karnataka High Courts and held that marital status cannot be a constitutionally valid basis for denying welfare measures to an otherwise eligible daughter.

The Supreme Court specifically overruled the contrary view taken by the Allahabad High Court in Saida Begum and observed that such exclusion is discriminatory and unconstitutional.

The Court noted that the appellant continued to reside in the same village after marriage, actively participated in the operation of the fair price shop, and assumed responsibility for her family members after her mother’s death. Therefore, denying her application solely because she was married was legally unsustainable.

Key Observations

The Supreme Court observed that:

  • Marriage does not sever a daughter’s relationship with her parental family.
  • Welfare measures cannot be denied solely on the basis of marital status.
  • A classification that disadvantages married daughters while imposing no such restriction on married sons violates constitutional guarantees of equality.
  • Gender-based assumptions regarding dependency and family responsibilities have no place in modern constitutional jurisprudence.

Relief Granted

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the orders rejecting the appellant’s claim and directed the competent authorities to issue the fair price shop licence within four weeks.

Significance of the Judgment

The ruling is a major step towards gender justice and reinforces the constitutional promise of equality. It recognises the changing social realities where daughters continue to support and care for their parental families even after marriage.

By rejecting discriminatory classifications based on marital status, the judgment strengthens the principles enshrined under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution and ensures that welfare schemes are implemented in a fair and inclusive manner.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Kulsum Nisha v. State of Uttar Pradesh sends a clear message that constitutional rights cannot be curtailed on the basis of outdated social stereotypes. A daughter’s entitlement to welfare benefits and compassionate measures cannot depend upon whether she is married.

The judgment marks another important milestone in India’s evolving jurisprudence on gender equality and equal treatment under the law.

Join our WhatsApp Groups ( click here ) and Telegram Channel ( Click here ) and get instant notifications.