A historic and decisive decision of the Supreme Court has come in the long-running legal debate regarding the issue of compassionate appointment of married daughters in India. The court has made it clear that it is not right to exclude the married daughter of a deceased government employee from the benefits of compassionate appointment or welfare schemes merely on the basis of marital status.
What is this decision? legal aspect…
What is the background of this case, it is important to know
The whole case is very interesting. Badru Nisha was allotted a fair price shop in Gram Panchayat Ariyawan of Amethi district of Uttar Pradesh. After his demise on March 4, 2024, his married daughter Kulsoom applied for allotment of the shop under dependent quota. The sub-divisional magistrate rejected Kulsoom’s application saying she was a married daughter and therefore under the Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities Order, 2016 and a government order of 2019. Family is outside the definition. The matter went to the High Court, where the Sub-Divisional Magistrate’s decision was found to be correct as per the rules. Ultimately there was an appeal in the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court hearing and decision
- in the supreme court Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe The bench heard the case.
- He said the denial of rights to all married daughters cannot be justified merely on the ground that every married daughter necessarily lives somewhere else.
- Living separately is a separate eligibility condition, which has to be seen depending on the facts of the case.
- The judgment makes it clear that depriving a married daughter of compassionate appointment or benefits of welfare schemes merely because she gets married is completely unconstitutional and arbitrary.
The Court also held that marriage does not sever a daughter’s relationship with her parents’ family. This decision not only changes the interpretation of the service rules, but Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution It also strengthens the principles of equality and non-discrimination.
Is the married daughter out of the family?
The apex court has taken a clear stand on this question that ‘FamilyIt is not constitutionally correct to exclude any married daughter from the definition of ‘. The court said that if a policy considers only an unmarried daughter as eligible, then it is arbitrary. The bench held that the purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial support to the family, and marital status cannot be considered a special basis in this.
What will be the long-term impact of the decision?
The impact of this decision will not be limited to compassionate appointments only, but it can also lead to broader policy changes like the need to amend government recruitment rules, strengthening women’s rights or expanding the principle of equality. One more thing to note is that in the case, the Supreme Court also indicated that if gender-based discrimination is found in any policy, it will be considered unconstitutional. Now it remains to be seen what impact this decision has on future decisions.