Supreme Court Overturns Bihar’s Policy on Compassionate Appointments
The Supreme Court of India has declared that the Bihar government’s 2014 policy, which limited eligibility for compassionate appointments to only divorced or deserted daughters, is legally unsustainable. This ruling was delivered in the case Sayara Khatoon @ Shayara Khatoon & Anr v State of Bihar & Ors.
Legal Background and Court’s Ruling
The court, comprising Justices MM Sundresh and Prasanna B Varale, emphasized that legal presumptions cannot assume a married daughter severs ties with her parental family due solely to her marital status. The bench overturned both a prior Patna High Court judgment and the Bihar government’s rejection of a widow’s request for her daughter’s compassionate appointment following her husband’s passing.
The Supreme Court made it clear that the policy’s classification, which restricted eligibility to only divorced or deserted daughters, was indefensible. It highlighted that any differentiation between daughters and sons in matters of compassionate appointments violates constitutional principles, particularly under Article 14.
Case Details and Arguments
The case originated when a widow’s request for compassionate appointment for her daughter was denied under the Bihar government’s December 10, 2014 policy, as the daughter was neither divorced nor deserted. The widow and her daughter challenged this rejection in the Patna High Court, which upheld the policy. Subsequently, they appealed to the Supreme Court.
In their appeal, they argued that the objection raised by the widow’s brother, which was initially a reason for rejection, was later nullified by a no-objection certificate he provided. They contended that the 2014 policy was in violation of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law.
More Read
The State of Bihar defended its policy, suggesting that traditionally, a married daughter is expected to leave her parental home. However, the Supreme Court found this reasoning flawed, stressing that the law should not assume severed ties between a married daughter and her parental family. The daughter’s statement that she resided with her parental family, supported by her mother and brother, was also considered.
Conclusion and Directives
Rejecting a hyper-technical approach, the Supreme Court directed the Bihar government to assess the daughter’s claim on its merits within eight weeks. This decision underscores the court’s commitment to upholding equality and non-discrimination based on gender in compassionate appointments.
The appellants were represented by Advocates Rashmi Singh, Priyansha Sharma, and Subhan Shankar Gogoi, while Advocates Manish Kumar, Divyansh Mishra, and Kumar Saurav appeared for the respondents.
