The Supreme Court on Tuesday held that a married daughter cannot be denied the benefit of a welfare scheme solely on the ground of her marital status.

A Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe said exclusion of married daughters from welfare measures is based on constitutionally impermissible gender stereotypes and violates the guarantees of equality and non-discrimination under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.

It held that dependency, financial need and eligibility are the relevant considerations in such schemes, and not whether a woman is married.

“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,” the Court said.

The Bench further noted that while a married son continues to remain part of the family irrespective of his marital status, daughters were being excluded solely because of marital status.

“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,” it said.

The ruling came in an appeal filed by one Kulsum Nisha who challenged the denial of compassionate allotment of a fair price shop after the death of her mother, a fair price shop dealer in Uttar Pradesh.

Nisha’s mother died in March 2024. Nisha then applied for allotment of the shop under the dependent quota, stating that she continued to live with her mother and sisters even after marriage, assisted in operating the shop and had become responsible for supporting the family, including a visually impaired sister.

Her application was rejected by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate solely because she was a married daughter and therefore, fell outside the definition of “family” under a State government order regulating appointment of fair price shop dealers.

The Deputy Commissioner upheld the decision and the Allahabad High Court dismissed her challenge, though it recognised that the issue raised an important question of law concerning the rights of married daughters.

She then approached the Supreme Court.

Before the top court, Nisha argued that exclusion of married daughters from a beneficial scheme lacked any rational basis and violated constitutional guarantees of equality.

On the other hand, the State contended that married daughters ordinarily move to their matrimonial homes and may not satisfy the requirement of local residence.

Rejecting this argument, the Court said residence is a separate eligibility condition that must be assessed on the facts of each case.

“A blanket exclusion of all married daughters cannot be justified on the speculative assumption that every married daughter necessarily resides elsewhere. Constitutional adjudication cannot be founded on presumptions that are overbroad and disconnected from lived realities,” the Bench observed.

The Court said the purpose of compassionate allotment is not to create a right of succession but to provide immediate financial relief to the family of a deceased dealer and ensure continuity in the public distribution system.

Once dependency is accepted as the governing criterion, exclusion of a married daughter solely because she is married becomes irrational, it added.

The Bench held that the relevant provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016 must be interpreted to include married daughters who can establish dependency and satisfy other eligibility conditions.

It noted that the authorities denying her relief had themselves not disputed Nisha’s claim that she continued to reside in the village, helped her mother run the fair price shop and supported her sisters after her mother’s death.

“The sole ground on which her application was rejected was that she is a married daughter. Once that ground is held to be constitutionally invalid, no impediment survives to the grant of relief in her favour,” the Court said.

It accordingly set aside the orders of the High Court, the Deputy Commissioner and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, and directed the competent authority to issue the allotment order in Nisha’s favour within four weeks.

Nisha was represented by advocates Anand Verma, Vivek Sura, Simran Verma, Shreyuss Shankar Joshi, Rohit Amit Sthalekar and Siddhant Singh.

The respondents were represented by Senior Advocate SR Singh along with advocates Ankur Prakash and Rajat Singh.

Advocate Rukhmini Bobde acted as the Amicus Curiae.

[Read Judgement]