Exclusion of Married Daughters from Compassionate Allotment of PDS Licenses is Prima Facie Discriminatory and Arbitrary

The petitioner is the daughter of Late Bhagirath Thakur, a licensed Fair Price Shop (PDS) dealer who died in 2021.

The petitioner, who resided with and assisted her father during his lifetime, applied for the compassionate allotment of the PDS license.

Despite a favorable enquiry report from the Block Supply Officer, the District Compassionate Committee rejected her claim on 09.02.2022.

This rejection was upheld by the Divisional Commissioner on 10.04.2023 on the sole ground that under the existing rules, a married daughter is not eligible for compassionate allotment.

The petitioner challenged these orders, alleging discrimination based on marital status and gender.

1. Whether the exclusion of a married daughter from the category of eligible dependents for compassionate allotment of a PDS license is legally and constitutionally sustainable.

2. Whether the authorities erred in ignoring the petitioner's actual dependency and the principles of equality under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India.

Clause 10 of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which lists eligible dependents for compassionate allotment as the spouse, son, unmarried daughter, daughter-in-law, and widowed daughter-in-law.

Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India, which prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sex.

Kulsum Nisha vs. State of U.P. Others (2026 SCC OnLine SC 1059), where the Supreme Court held that excluding married daughters from the definition of "family" for compassionate benefits is "manifestly arbitrary" and violates the right to equality.

The court observed that the petitioner’s application was rejected purely on a literal interpretation of Clause 10 of the 2016 Control Order.

The authorities failed to consider that dependency is a question of fact, and the petitioner had established her residence and financial reliance on the deceased.

The court noted that the lower authorities did not account for the evolving legal landscape, specifically the Supreme Court's ruling in Kulsum Nisha, which strikes down the distinction between married and unmarried daughters as lacking "intelligible differentia".

The Court reasoned that since the Licensing Authority had not yet examined the claim through the lens of these constitutional principles and recent precedents, a merit-based review by the administrative body was necessary.

It held that the authority must reconsider the petitioner's claim independently, without treating her marital status as an automatic disqualification. The Licensing Authority was directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order within three months, keeping in view the provisions of the 2016 Control Order and the equality principles established by the Supreme Court.