Marital Status Cannot Be a Basis to Exclude Daughters from Compassionate Appointment as Fair Price Shop Dealers

The Appellant's mother was a fair price shop dealer in District Amethi, Uttar Pradesh

Following the mother’s death on 04.03.2024, the Appellant—a married daughter residing with her mother and supporting four sisters (one visually impaired)—applied for the shop allotment under the "dependent quota"

The Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) and the Deputy Commissioner rejected her application

These rejections were based on Government Order (G.O.) No. 6 of 2019, specifically Paragraph IV(10), which defined "family" to include unmarried, legally separated, and widowed daughters, but excluded married daughters

The High Court dismissed her writ petition, citing binding precedents, but granted a certificate under Article 134-A of the Constitution, noting the substantial question of law regarding the rights of married daughters

Whether the exclusion of a "married daughter" from the definition of "family" in the 2016 Order and the 2019 G.O. for compassionate allotment of fair price shops is constitutionally sustainable under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution

The Court applied the doctrine of reasonable classification under Article 14 of the Constitution, requiring an "intelligible differentia" with a "rational nexus" to the object of the law

It relied on Article 15(1), prohibiting discrimination based on sex, and Article 39(a), directing the State to ensure men and women have equal rights to means of livelihood

The court also invoked the "Doctrine of Purposive Construction," which mandates interpreting language to serve the underlying objective of the provision and avoid arbitrary results

Precedents such as Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar [para. 17] and Vimla Srivastava v. State of U.P. [para. 27] were central to establishing that marital status cannot be a proxy for dependency or residency.

The Court reasoned that the objective of the "dependent quota" is to provide immediate financial relief to a deceased dealer’s family; therefore, dependency is a question of fact, not marital status

The exclusion of married daughters while including married sons was found to be based on "gender-based stereotypes" and "historical notions of gender inequality" that assume a woman ceases to be part of her natal family upon marriage

The Court held this classification lacks a rational nexus to the objective of the welfare scheme

Using the doctrine of purposive construction, the Court determined that because Clause 2(p) of the 2016 Order already included "Adult children who are fully dependent" without gender or marital qualifiers, the specific mention of "unmarried daughters" should be read as illustrative rather than exhaustive

Consequently, the term "daughters" must be interpreted to include married daughters to remain consistent with Articles 14 and 15(1)

The contrary views in Saida Begum and Smt. Kusumlata were overruled

The Court quashed the orders of the SDM, Deputy Commissioner, and the High Court, and directed the competent authority to issue the allotment order in favor of the Appellant within four weeks