The Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgement dated June 2nd, 2026 concluded one of the issues relating to gender equality. The case was filed by Kulsum Nisha against the State of U.P. and Ors, the Civil Appeal No. 7667 of 2025, it was based on whether the government was lawful in restricting her claims on maternal family benefits, post the daughter gets married. The main subject matter for review was, "the legacy approach, marriage of girl puts all the maternal ties to an end". This wasn't just any normal case; it targeted a deep-rooted idea pushed by the State, rooted in legacy gender roles. Starting as a challenge to a decision made by Allahabad's High Court, the matter got its boost when judges allowed appeal despite past verdicts. Arguments turned on whether dropping women merely because they're married, broke constitutional promises around fairness, equal access, jobs, and personal security under Arts. 14, 15(1), 19(1)(g), and 21 of India's Constitution. A deeper question loomed: Did the rule linking marital status to exclusion really make sense when helping those who lost breadwinners?
This matter began with dispute of a fair price shop, part of PDS (i.e. ‘public distribution networks’) in the State of U.P.. One such shop was allocated to the mother (Smt. Badrun Nisha) of the current applicant Smt. Kulsum Nisha on October 27th, 2012. Even after marriage, applicant remained in the maternal home, managed daily aids to mother in tasks at the shop, covered living expenses, especially for her four younger sisters - one of them was visually impaired. After the applicant’s mother passed on March 4th, 2024, the daughter took over the shop based on permission given by the Tiloi’s Sub-Divisional Magistrate on March 5th, 2024. Then, on March 19th, 2024, the woman applicant requested official evaluation under Rule 3-B of the agreement for fair price shop allotment - made available to those in need after a family tragedy. The Applicant was looking for continuation of the aforesaid shop.
There were multiple forums, the applicants appeached, the first refusal was an order dated July 16th, 2024 by an inferior officer. The refusal was based on one issue; she was not part of the "family" because she was identified as a married daughter. According to Rule IV (10) of G.O. No. 6/2019 dated August 5th, 2019, only certain relatives qualify under this category. This CENTRAL ACT (The "Essential Commodities Act of 1955”), the STATE ACT ("the Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Maintenance of Stock by Fair Price Shops) Order, 2016") which has brough in restrictive authority with the State Government. Following this, an appeal by the applicant reached the Deputy Commissioner on January 7th, 2025 - here also, same grounds were reiterated as rights are void due to marital status and the legal definition. A WRIT petition was raised in the Allahabad High Court by the applicant to challenge the rejections by the State. The High Court's decision on March 5th, 2025, ruled against considering the applicants petition, citing adherence to prior Division Bench decisions in cases such as ‘Smt. Kusumlata case1 in 2002 ‘ and ‘Saida Begum2 case in 2023 ‘. Notwithstanding this stance, legal complexity and importance of the matter pursued the High Court to grant a certificate under the Constitution, Art. 134A. This made the movement of application to adjudicate before the Supreme Court of India. The applicant financial dependency on her mother, something unchallenged throughout, should not have led authorities to base their decision solely on narrow legal interpretations of rules.
Learned Council Advocate Mr. Anand Verma argued on behalf of the appellants Kulsum Nisha, that the exclusion of married daughters from the definition of "family" was unconstitutional. The old generation legacy gender-based applicability for such exclusion was the main argument from the applicant's end claiming those as an arbitrary and discriminatory and claimed as a violation fundamental rights.
The classification under IV (10) of the Government Order contravened the Equality Clause under the Constitution of India Art. 14. This classification lacks clear differentiating factors and does not have any reasonable nexus with the Compassionate Appointment Scheme that aims to provide direct financial assistance to the family of the deceased. The factum of marriage is an irrelevant criterion in determining the dependency; a daughter’s marital status cannot determine her dependency from her “natal family”. The policy also logically fails to account for a son whose relations with his “natal family” are severed by the marriage. A daughter by virtue of marriage is severed from her natal family but a son is not and hence marriage cannot be the basis of the classification under Art. 14. A ruling deemed discriminatory toward women appeared in the Constitution under Art. 15(1).
It was pointed, earlier the marriage used to consider as disconnect from the maternal family, same old outdated principle was refereed for the rejection. Considering the same principle, the rejection to the appellant’s right of equal treatment was declined which was restricting her ability to earn a living, claimed as violation under Art. 19(1)(g) which is available for individual to live with dignity. Despite differing decisions by other High Courts, one case after another arrived at conflicting conclusions. In hopes of clarity, reference was made to rulings from the Calcutta High Court in ‘State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Purnima Das3 case in 2017 ‘ and the Karnataka High Court in ‘Bhuvaneshwari V. Puranik v. State of Karnataka4 case in 2020 ‘. The married daughter’s rights acknowledged in those decisions in similar facts. With these points, the petition sought reversal of lower court rulings and directed the authorities to consider her appeal for compassionate appointment.
The matter was examined by the Supreme Court of India on established constitutional principles whether the judgment was guided by the norms of classification by reason. The court checked, if judgement was in line with the principle of equality? the Court was not limited to the superficial issue rather it evaluated the legislation and regulation.
Referring to <‘Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar7 case in 1958 ‘, twofold test was applied, As the set principle, the test of classification under Art. 14 demands two things: a reasonable classification, and a rational relation to the purpose.
Test 01: where the establish necessity to check the classification pass the test for government use with legitimacy?
Test 02: The expected objective achieved by the criteria of classification?
Answer: The final answer for both the Tests was negative.
The regulation pointed out that the married women classification set was arbitrary as marital status became the sole criteria; where the program in question aimed at providing relief to dependent, regardless of legal status. A person may be dependent in reality rather than by legal status; dependency arises out of dependence (financial and living requirement) and not by status. A married daughter depends on her parents the same way an unmarried daughter does. The reasoning advanced by the State’s submitted counter to the norm of equality and debased personal dignity. It was termed an 'illegitimate stereotype' to state that marriage detached ties with one's family of origin.
Local residence was never established as a must by the tribunal. G.O.'s IV para 5 establishes local residence as a separate condition and the Court relied on that. In light of that each individual has to be considered on his own merits and depending on his situation so like a married woman who was still resident with her mother shall be consider as a resident, but due to the presumption that married women have left their parent’s house to live with their husbands, a blanket rejection was held as arbitrary and unjust and biased, more so since married sons were left untouched and no such rigour was applied in their case.
The judgment largely banked on the evolving case law on Art. 14 but more importantly rested on the bench's readiness to strike down arbitrary, irrational, capricious and unjust State actions (citing the cases of ‘Shayara Bano v. Union of India8 case in 2017 ‘). It harmonised its stand with the progressive views taken by other High Courts, (like <‘Smt. Vimla Srivastava v. State of U.P.9 case in 2015 ‘.) but overturned the earlier rulings of the Allahabad High Court in ‘Smt. Kusumlata1 case in 2002 ‘ and ‘Saida Begum2 case in 2023 ‘
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing the orders of the two High Courts and the Courts below. The reasoning for the ruling was that the exclusion of married daughters from a defined family on a sole gender - related assumption of marital status in the Government Order was unreasonable and violated the Constitution’s Art. 14 and Art. 15 (1) and was unrelated to the actual intent of the compassionate appointment scheme which was designed to assist dependent family of a fair price dealer who was deceased.
The Court employed an interpretation which is somewhat weak but nevertheless upholds the constitutional mandate instead of striking down the entire provision. The principle of purposive construction was used to interpret the words in order to understand the Constitutional objectives. Clause 2 (p) of the 2016 order, "a single woman, an unmarried woman, a separated woman, a woman divorced by her husband, a widow, an unmarried woman whose husband is missing or dead or otherwise unaccounted for.” Clause 4 (p) of the Government Order states that such beneficiary pertains to a married daughter. The applicant had to show the dependent status on the deceased dealer and fulfil the rest of the criteria for the distribution. The Court ultimately felt that literal rule would lead to unfair discrimination with married daughters and that purposive construction would promote the welfare scheme's purpose.
The Court followed the principles laid down in the judgment of Allahabad High Court in ‘Smt. Vimla Srivastava v. State of U.P. case in 2015 ‘ and that of other High Courts including, Bombay, Karnataka and Calcutta which held that marital status of the daughter should not disentitle an otherwise eligible daughter to receive benefits and that marital status cannot form the basis for restricting the benefits of the welfare scheme from an otherwise eligible female. The Court further observed that Allahabad High Court judgment in ‘Saida Begum2 case in 2023 ‘ and ‘Smt. Kusumlata1 case in 2002 ‘ was not matching the core sprit of equality and was thus overruled. The competent authority was directed to pass an allotment order in favour of applicant within four weeks and the orders dated March 5th, 2025 (High Court), January 7th, 2025 (Deputy Commissioner) & July 16th, 2024 (SDM) stand cancelled.
The Constitution directs the Gender-Equality, any condition like marriage of a daughter doesn’t cut-off her right, like it would for unmarried daughter or a son. The Equality Test under Art. 14 is one of the important evaluation aspects while considering such matters. It has fortified the case that such discrimination is unconstitutional in scope of the citizen’s rights. The courts applying the “doctrine purposive construction” would be provided by the court’s judgement an important tool for applying legislation in the manner that will advance and not undermine, the individual’s rights. This case has substantial constitutional significance in advancing and refining the concept of equality and in dealing with the structural inequalities. It means in case of the daughter, her rights as a member of her family will not be wiped out as a result of her marriage. There is legislative as well as judicial evidence to support this view.
Footnotes: