look news india
The Supreme Court of India has given a very historic, revolutionary and big decision in favor of half the country’s population and married daughters. The Supreme Court, while hearing a very important case, has clearly ruled that married daughters cannot be excluded from appointments or benefits on compassionate grounds merely on the basis of their marital status. Taking a strong stand, the country’s top court said that complete exclusion of married daughters from the definition of ‘family’ in government rules or welfare schemes is clearly arbitrary, completely unreasonable and constitutionally completely unacceptable. A joint bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aaradhe outright quashed the old order of the Allahabad High Court, which had said that a married daughter cannot be considered part of the family for the purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds.
The daughter of a deceased ration dealer had knocked on the door of the country’s biggest court.
Let us tell you that this entire matter is related to a special appeal filed by the married daughter of a ration dealer. The father of this woman, who hailed from a village in Uttar Pradesh, was a dealer of a government fair price shop, who had died. After the death of her father, the woman had submitted her claim for the dealership of that shop on compassionate grounds. However, the Allahabad High Court had completely rejected his claim citing an old rule of the state government. After this, the woman did not lose courage and challenged the controversial government order of 2019 in the Supreme Court, under which married daughters were kept out of the official definition of family.
Marital status has no logical connection with dependency and financial need: Supreme Court
After hearing this historical case in detail, the Supreme Court bench made it clear in its decision that keeping a married daughter out of the definition cannot be justified from any point of view. The court said that the main and sole purpose of allotting a government job or dealership under the Dependent Quota is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of the deceased who is facing financial difficulties and sudden crisis. The bench made a very harsh comment and said that the most important point to be considered in any case is the dependency of the applicant, financial need, local residence and his ability to fulfill the responsibility assigned to him. The marital status of a woman has no logical connection whatsoever with these important points.
The blood bond between parents and daughter never ends through marriage.
The Supreme Court, while deeply attacking the conservative thinking of the society, said that this controversial provision of the state government is completely based on the wrong and conservative belief that after marriage, the daughter is no longer a member of her parents’ family or dependent on them. The court made it clear that any such notion is completely against modern India and the constitutional guarantee of equality. The bench said in eloquent words that marriage can neither dissolve the unbreakable bond between a daughter and her biological parents nor provide any valid legal basis for her not being dependent on her maternal family.
Contemporary social realities have changed, sons can also be self-reliant
Holding a mirror to the present society, the apex court said that today’s contemporary social realities clearly show that there are many married daughters in the country who, even after their marriage, live with their elderly parents, fully support them or remain emotionally and financially dependent on them. Similarly, there may be sons in the society who, despite being included in the definition of family under the rules, are practically not at all dependent on their parents or family. Therefore, dependency is entirely a factual and grounded question and cannot be conclusively determined on the basis of one’s marital status alone.
The Constitution does not permit gender-based stereotypical discrimination between men and women.
Highlighting the gender inequality present in the government’s policy, the Supreme Court said that married sons have not been kept out of benefits in this government scheme, because according to the government’s thinking, the son always remains within the circle of the family, irrespective of his marital status. Whereas on the contrary, a daughter is shown the door simply because she is married. The bench, while making a very serious comment, said that this discrimination is completely based on a gender-based conservative thinking and a patriarchal mentality that after marriage, the daughter becomes completely the property or member of another family and all her relations with her maternal home are lost forever. Such a notion is completely inconsistent with the guarantee of equality given to every citizen of the country by our Constitution.
The court also completely rejected the state government’s weak argument of ‘local residence’.
During the hearing of the case, a strange argument was given by the State Government that since the married daughter moves to another house after marriage, she cannot fulfill the mandatory requirement of local residence for operating a shop. The Supreme Court rejected this argument of the government, considering it completely unsupportable and baseless. Citing the records of the case and the facts available, the court said that in this case it has been completely proved that this woman has been continuously living in the same village even after her marriage and has been actively helping her elderly mother at every turn in the smooth functioning of the fair price ration shop. In such a situation, depriving him of his rights just because of this is completely wrong both legally and humanly.
