The Supreme Court of India, in a landmark decision delivered on Tuesday, declared that a married daughter cannot be excluded from receiving welfare benefits based solely on her marital status. The bench, comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, emphasized that such exclusions are rooted in unconstitutional gender stereotypes and violate the principles of equality and non-discrimination enshrined in Articles 14 and 15 of the Indian Constitution.
Challenging Gender Stereotypes in Welfare Schemes
The Court underscored that eligibility for welfare schemes should be determined by factors such as dependency and financial need, rather than marital status. The bench stated, “The impugned provision assumes that upon marriage, a daughter ceases to be a member or dependent of her parental family. This assumption is constitutionally impermissible. Marriage does not sever the bond between a daughter and her parental family, nor does it provide a valid ground to presume a lack of dependency.”
Highlighting the discriminatory nature of the existing provisions, the Court noted that while married sons remain part of the family, married daughters are unjustly excluded. This distinction is based on the stereotype that a married daughter becomes part of another family, a notion that the Constitution aims to abolish.
The Case of Kulsum Nisha
This ruling came in response to an appeal by Kulsum Nisha, who was denied compassionate allotment of a fair price shop following her mother’s death. Nisha, who lived with her mother and sisters post-marriage, applied for the allotment under the dependent quota, arguing her involvement in the family business and her responsibility for supporting her visually impaired sister. However, her application was rejected by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on the grounds of her being a married daughter, a decision upheld by the Deputy Commissioner and dismissed by the Allahabad High Court.
Nisha’s case reached the Supreme Court, where she contended that excluding married daughters from welfare schemes lacked a rational basis and contravened constitutional guarantees of equality. The State argued that married daughters typically relocate to their matrimonial homes, possibly failing the local residence requirement.
More Read
The Court dismissed this argument, stating that residence should be assessed based on individual case facts. “A blanket exclusion of all married daughters cannot be justified on the speculative assumption that every married daughter necessarily resides elsewhere,” the bench noted, adding that constitutional adjudication should not rely on broad presumptions disconnected from reality.
Implications of the Ruling
The Supreme Court clarified that the aim of compassionate allotment is to provide immediate financial relief to the deceased dealer’s family and to maintain continuity in the public distribution system. If dependency is recognized as the central criterion, excluding a married daughter based on marital status becomes irrational.
The Court directed that the relevant provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016 be interpreted to include married daughters who can demonstrate dependency and meet other eligibility criteria. Observing that the authorities did not dispute Nisha’s residency and contribution to her family’s livelihood, the Court deemed the rejection of her application unconstitutional.
More Read
The Supreme Court set aside previous orders from the High Court, Deputy Commissioner, and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, instructing a competent authority to issue the allotment order in Nisha’s favor within four weeks. The decision represents a significant step towards eradicating gender bias in welfare schemes and reinforcing the constitutional rights of married daughters.
