Daughter Doesn't Lose Ties With Natal Family On Marriage; Such Gender Stereotype Incompatible With Constitution : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today has said that any assumption that a married daughter ceases to be a member of the parental family is based on gender stereotypes and is constitutionally impermissible to the touchstone of equality. 

The observation was made by a bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe in a case where a married daughter was denied compassionate appointment on the death of her mother by the Allahabad High on the grounds that 'married daughter' is excluded from the definition of family as per a 2019 Uttar Pradesh Government Order.

Setting aside all orders, it allowed her plea for the allotment of a fair price shop, which used to be run by her mother before her demise.

In a judgment authored by Justice Aradhe, he said that marriage doesn't extinguish the bond between a daughter and her family, and it shouldn't be assumed that she is no longer dependent upon the family.

"The impugned provision proceeds on the assumption that upon marriage a daughter ceases to be a member of, or dependent upon, her parental family. Such an assumption is constitutionally impermissible. Marriage neither extinguishes the bond between a daughter and her parental family nor furnishes a valid basis to presume absence of dependency. Contemporary social realities demonstrate that many married daughters continue to reside with, support, or remain dependent upon their parents. "

The judgment recognises that dependency is not a matter of gender but is a question of fact and therefore can't be conclusively determined by marital status alone.

Adding to this, the Court said there may be situations where the son is not dependent upon the family despite being included within the definition. But that exclusion doesn't extend to a married son as it does to a married daughter.

"Significantly, the scheme does not exclude a married son from consideration. A son continues to remain within the fold of the family irrespective of his martial status, whereas a daughter is excluded solely because she is married. The distinction is founded upon a gender-based stereotype that a daughter, upon marriage, becomes a member of another family and loses all ties with her natal family. Such a presumption is incompatible with the constitutional guarantee of equality and perpetuates historical notions of gender inequality which the Constitution seeks to eradicate."

Further, the Court countered the argument by the State that for eligibility of appointment, the person must be a local resident, and a married daughter may not fulfil this requirement. It said that this is again based on a speculative assumption that every married daughter necessarily resides elsewhere. 

It reasoned that this is a matter of fact and can be determined on a case-by-case basis, but a blanket exclusion of all married daughters violates the fundamental right to equality. 

"We are, therefore, of the considered view that the exclusion of married daughters from the definition of “family” fails the test of reasonable classification and is manifestly arbitrary. The distinction created by Paragraph IV(10) of the G.O. lacks any intelligible differentia having a rational nexus with the object of the scheme. The exclusion is founded solely upon marital status and gender stereotypes and consequently, violates Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution of India."

Headnote

Essential Commodities Act, 1955 – Section 3 – Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016 – Clause 2(p) – Government Order No. 6 of 2019 dated 05.08.2019 – Paragraph IV(10) and Paragraph V – Compassionate Appointment / Allotment of Fair Price Shop – Exclusion of 'Married Daughter' from the definition of 'Family' – Constitution of India – Articles 14 and 15(1) – Gender-based Stereotype - Key Issue - Whether the blanket exclusion of a 'married daughter' from the definition of 'family' for the purpose of allotment of a fair price shop under the dependent/compassionate quota is constitutionally sustainable – Supreme Court held – i. Gender Discrimination and Arbitrary Classification - The Supreme Court held that the exclusion of a married daughter from the definition of "family" under Clause 2(p) of the 2016 Order and Paragraph IV(10) of the G.O. fails the test of reasonable classification and is manifestly arbitrary - The distinction lacks any intelligible differentia having a rational nexus with the welfare-oriented object of the scheme, which is to provide immediate financial relief to the dependent family of a deceased dealer; ii. Impermissible Stereotypes - Supreme Court observed that while a married son continues to be considered a part of the family, a daughter is excluded solely because of her marriage - This distinction is founded upon a gender-based stereotype that a daughter loses all ties with her natal family upon marriage which is incompatible with the constitutional guarantees of equality under Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution; iii. Dependency as a Question of Fact - Dependency is a question of fact to be determined in each individual case and cannot be conclusively or speculatively presumed based entirely on marital status or assumptions regarding local residence; iv. Doctrine of Purposive Construction Applied - Applying the doctrine of purposive construction to avoid an unjust or arbitrary result, the Court read down the provision - The expression "daughter" in Clause 2(p) of the 2016 Order must be interpreted to include a married daughter, provided she establishes factual dependency on the deceased dealer, submits a dependency certificate along with No Objection Certificates (NOCs) from other adult family members, and satisfies all other eligibility criteria, including local residence. [Relied on Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia & Ors. v. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar & Ors., 1958 SCC OnLine SC 6; Budhan Choudhry v. State of Bihar & Ors., (1954) 2 SCC 791; Shailesh Dhairyawan v. Mohan Balkrishan Lulla, (2016) 3 SCC 619; Paras 18-27]