Back
Can Married Daughters Be Denied Jobs? Supreme Court Declares Bihar Policy Today
The has delivered a landmark ruling addressing the gender-based restrictions in government employment policies. In a decision by the bench comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, the Court invalidated a policy that limited compassionate appointments exclusively to divorced or deserted daughters, marking a significant step toward ensuring equal treatment for married daughters.
A Fight for Equality
The legal battle originated from a challenge to an order by the , which had upheld the rejection of a daughter’s plea for a following her father’s death. The rejection was based on a policy dated , which stipulated that only daughters who were either divorced or deserted could be considered for such jobs, under the assumption that a married daughter effectively separates from her parental home.
The appellants argued that this classification was inherently discriminatory and violated the principles of equality enshrined in . Furthermore, they pointed out that the deceased employee's brother had initially provided a , rendering his later objections irrelevant to the legal merits of the case.
The Apex Court’s Scrutiny
During the proceedings, the defended the policy by asserting that is not an inherent right and remains subject to the government’s established criteria. The state argued that the policy reflects the societal expectation that a daughter’s primary residence becomes her matrimonial home post-marriage.
The Supreme Court bench rejected this reasoning firmly. The judges emphasized that there is no legal basis to assume that a daughter severs ties with her parental family upon entering into a marriage. The Court highlighted that the appellant had continued to live with her parental family, receiving support from her mother and brother, regardless of her marital status or the formal recognition of her divorce.
Key Observations
The judgment clarifies that rigid must align with :
-
"This Court has repeatedly held that any classification differentiating a daughter from a son is, , ."
-
"On a perusal of the policy, we find that classification restricting eligibility only to a divorced or deserted daughter cannot be sustained in the eye of law."
-
"There cannot be a presumption in law that, after marriage, a daughter severs her ties with her parental family and resides with husband in her matrimonial home."
-
"In any event, adopting a hyper-technical approach cannot be a ground to deny consideration of her claim for ."
A New Precedent for Future Claims
By setting aside the Patna High Court’s order, the Supreme Court has directed the state authorities to reconsider the appellant's claim on its merits within eight weeks. This ruling serves as a vital precedent, reinforcing the idea that regarding compassionate appointments cannot hinge on arbitrary assumptions about a woman's marital status. As it stands, the decision underscores the necessity for state entities to modernize their employment guidelines to reflect current constitutional standards of and .
