Supreme Court Expands Compassionate Appointment to Married Daughters — Upholds Articles 14 & 15

<p>The <span class="key-term" data-definition="Supreme Court — The apex judicial body in India, final interpreter of the Constitution (GS2: Polity)">Supreme Court</span> has set aside the earlier rulings of the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Allahabad High Court — A high court with jurisdiction over Uttar Pradesh, hearing appeals and original matters (GS2: Polity)">Allahabad High Court</span> that excluded married daughters from the definition of "family" for compassionate appointments. The apex court held that such exclusion violates <span class="key-term" data-definition="Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Indian Constitution — Guarantee equality before law and prohibit discrimination on grounds such as sex (GS2: Polity)">Articles 14 and 15(1)</span> and is based on gender stereotypes.</p> <h3>Key Developments</h3> <ul> <li>Bench of <strong>Justice PS Narasimha</strong> and <strong>Justice Alok Aradhe</strong> aligned the decision with earlier judgments of the Bombay, Karnataka and Calcutta High Courts.</li> <li>The Court declared that marital status has no rational nexus with the criteria of dependency, financial need, residence, or ability to run the dealership.</li> <li>The order of 2019 by the Uttar Pradesh government (GO No. 6) that limited "family" to unmarried, legally separated or widowed daughters was struck down.</li> <li>The petition‑er, <strong>Kulsum Nisha</strong>, a married daughter who cared for her siblings and ran a fair‑price shop, will now be granted a licence within four weeks.</li> <li>The judgment praised <span class="key-term" data-definition="Amicus curiae — A 'friend of the court' who assists by providing expertise or information (GS2: Polity)">amicus curiae</span> <strong>Advocate Rukhmini Bobde</strong> for her contribution.</li> </ul> <h3>Important Facts</h3> <ul> <li>Case citation: <strong>KULSUM NISHA Vs STATE OF U.P | CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7667 OF 2025</strong>, reported as 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 588.</li> <li>The disputed provision is Clause 2(p) of the 2016 Order governing the <span class="key-term" data-definition="compassionate appointment — A provision allowing relatives of a deceased government dealer to take over the business to prevent hardship (GS3: Economy)">compassionate appointment</span> scheme.</li> <li>The Court emphasized that the expression “daughters” includes married daughters who submit a dependency certificate and No Objection Certificates from adult family members.</li> <li>Earlier divergent High Court judgments (e.g., Vimal Srivastava 2015, Kusumlata 2021, Saida Begum 2023) were overruled.</li> </ul> <h3>UPSC Relevance</h3> <p>This judgment touches upon several GS topics. It illustrates the application of constitutional guarantees of equality (Article 14) and prohibition of sex‑based discrimination (Article 15) – core of GS2: Polity. It also highlights the functioning of welfare measures like the <span class="key-term" data-definition="dependent quota — A reservation category for dependents of deceased dealers to ensure livelihood continuity (GS3: Economy)">dependent quota</span> under the Uttar Pradesh recruitment rules, relevant for GS3: Economy. The role of the <span class="key-term" data-definition="amicus curiae — A 'friend of the court' who assists by providing expertise or information (GS2: Polity)">amicus curiae</span> showcases procedural aspects of Indian jurisprudence, useful for GS2 and GS4 (Ethics) discussions on legal advocacy.</p> <h3>Way Forward</h3> <p>Administrative authorities in Uttar Pradesh must revise the 2019 GO to align with the Supreme Court’s interpretation and issue licences to eligible married daughters within the stipulated four‑week period. States should review similar provisions to avoid gender‑biased language. For UPSC aspirants, this case serves as a reference point for questions on constitutional law, gender equality, and the implementation of welfare schemes.</p>