2026 Supreme(SC) 664

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Alok Aradhe, JJ.
Kulsum Nisha – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7667 of 2025
Decided On : 02-06-2026

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Fair Price Shop Dealership – Exclusion of a married daughter from definition of “family” cannot be sustained – Marital status cannot constitute a valid ground for denying benefit of a welfare measure to an otherwise eligible daughter.
(2) Right to Equality – Differentia must have rational relation to object sought to be achieved by statute in question.
(3) Interpretation of Statute – Court should adopt purposive interpretation in cases where literal interpretation may not serve the purpose or may lead to absurdity.

Headnote:

(A) Essential Commodities Act, 1955 – Section 3 – Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016 – Clause 7(2)(i) – Constitution of India – Articles 14, 15(1), 21 and 39 – Non-appointment of married daughter of deceased dealer, as fair price shop dealer on compassionate ground – 1955 Act and 2016 Order have been framed to ensure equitable distribution of essential commodities through public distribution system – Fair price shop dealers perform an important public function in furtherance of this Constitutional objective – Exclusion of a married daughter from definition of “family” cannot be sustained – Object of allotment under dependent quota is to provide immediate succour to family of a deceased dealer facing financial hardship – Relevant considerations are dependency, financial need, residence, and ability of applicant to discharge obligations attached to dealership – Marital status bears no rational nexus to any of these considerations. (Paras 15 and 18)

(B) Essential Commodities Act, 1955 – Section 3 – Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016 – Clause 7(2)(i) – Constitution of India – Articles 14, 15(1), 21 and 39 – Non-appointment of married daughter of deceased dealer, as fair price shop dealer on compassionate ground – Marriage neither extinguishes 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 – Equally, there may be sons who are not dependent upon family despite being included within the definition – Dependency is a question of fact and cannot be conclusively determined by reference to marital status alone – Scheme does not exclude a married son from consideration – Son continues to remain within fold of family irrespective of his marital status, whereas daughter is excluded solely because she is married – Such distinction is founded upon a gender-based stereotype – 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. (Paras 19, 20 and 25)

(C) Essential Commodities Act, 1955 – Section 3 – Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016 – Clause 7(2)(i) – Constitution of India – Articles 14, 15(1), 21 and 39 – Non-appointment of married daughter of deceased dealer, as fair price shop dealer on compassionate ground – Marital status cannot constitute a valid ground for denying benefit of a welfare measure to an otherwise eligible daughter – Purpose of dependent quota is neither to create right of succession or inheritance in dealership nor a reward for lineage – Object is limited and specific: to provide immediate financial relief to dependent family of deceased dealer and to ensure continuity in public distribution system – Once dependency is accepted as governing criterion, exclusion of married daughter solely on account of her marital status becomes wholly irrational and self-defeating – Exclusion of married daughters from definition of “family” fails test of reasonable classification and is manifestly arbitrary – Distinction created by Paragraph IV(10) of G.O. No. 6 of 2019 on 05.08.2019 lacks any intelligible differentia having a rational nexus with object of scheme – Exclusion is founded solely upon marital status and gender stereotypes and violates Articles 14 and 15(1) of Constitution – Impugned orders quashed and set aside – Competent authority shall issue necessary allotment order in favour of appellant. (Paras 22, 23, 25, 27 and 29)

(D) Constitution of India – Article 14 – Right to Equality – Article 14 forbids class legislation, but permits reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation – Classification must be founded upon intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of group – Differentia must have rational relation to object sought to be achieved by statute in question – Doctrine of Equality has, over time, evolved beyond a narrow classification test – State action, which is arbitrary, irrational, capricious, or founded on impermissible stereotypes is equally vulnerable to challenge under Article 14. (Para 17)

(E) Interpretation of Statute – Doctrine of Purposive Construction – Principle of Purposive Construction is based on understanding that Court is supposed to attach that meaning to a provision which serves purpose behind it, basic approach being to ascertain is what provision is designed to accomplish – When language of an enactment is reasonably capable of more than one meaning, Court is not merely permitted but is obliged to prefer that construction which promotes provision and avoids a result that would be arbitrary or unjust – Court should adopt purposive interpretation in cases where literal interpretation may not serve the purpose or may lead to absurdity. (Para 24)

Facts of the case:

Present appeal emanates from order dated 05.03.2025 passed by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench by which claim of appellant, who is married daughter of deceased dealer, for appointment as a fair price shop dealer on compassionate ground, has been rejected.

Solitary issue which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether exclusion of married daughter from definition of ‘family’ as defined under Clause 2(p) of 2016 Order and as referred to in Paragraph (IV)10 of G.O. is constitutionally sustainable.

Findings of Court:

Orders dated 05.03.2025, 07.01.2025 and 16.07.2024 passed by High Court, Deputy Commissioner and SDM respectively are quashed and set aside. Competent authority shall issue the necessary allotment order in favour of the appellant within a period of four weeks.

Result : Appeal allowed.