Back
Supreme Court Rules Married Daughters Eligible for , Declaring Policy Exclusion
In a significant judgment addressing gender equality, the has struck down a restrictive government policy that denied to married daughters. A bench comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale emphasized that classifying daughters based on marital status is unconstitutional and violates the core guarantee of equality under .
Case Background
The dispute arose after the daughter of a deceased government employee in Bihar applied for appointment on compassionate grounds. Her claim was initially rejected by the authorities, and subsequently affirmed by the . The primary grounds for this rejection were twofold: an objection raised by the family of the appellant and a strict interpretation of the Bihar government’s policy, which limited eligibility exclusively to "divorced or deserted" daughters.
Arguments Presented
The appellants contended that the policy was discriminatory and lacked a with its stated objective. Crucially, they noted that the objection previously raised by the deceased’s brother had been resolved as he had provided a formal .
Conversely, the argued that is not an inherent right but a benefit governed by established government policy. The state further maintained that the policy was rooted in the sociological understanding that daughters, upon marriage, typically move to their matrimonial homes and are no longer dependent on the parental family.
Legal Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court rejected the state’s justification, noting that modern legal standards cannot be governed by archaic stereotypes. The court held that there is no presumption in law that a woman severs ties with her natal family upon marriage.
The bench underscored that any classification differentiating between a son and a daughter—or between married and unmarried/divorced daughters—is fundamentally flawed. The court observed:
"This Court has repeatedly held that any classification differentiating a daughter from a son is, , unconstitutional."
Addressing the specific nature of the state policy, the bench added:
"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."
The Court further criticized the state’s refusal to consider the appellant's specific circumstances, noting:
"In any event, adopting a hyper-technical approach cannot be a ground to deny consideration of her claim for ."
Court's Decision
Setting aside the orders of the High Court and the initial rejection, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal. The state authorities have been directed to re-evaluate the appellant's claim for on its merits. The government has been granted a period of from the receipt of the order to complete this process. This judgment serves as a binding clarification that institutional policies must evolve to reflect constitutional values of non-discrimination, ensuring that marital status does not become a barrier to employment opportunities within the civil services.
