Overview: The Supreme Court on 2 June 2026 ruled that a rule excluding married daughters from the definition of "family" is based on gender stereotypes and violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. The judgment arose from a case where a married daughter was denied a compassionate appointment after her mother’s death.
Key Developments
- The bench of Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe set aside the Uttar Pradesh Government Order that excluded married daughters from the "family" definition.
- The Court allowed the petitioner to obtain the licence for the fair price shop previously run by her mother.
- It held that marriage does not automatically end a daughter’s dependency on her natal family.
- The judgment declared that the exclusion fails the test of reasonable classification under Article 14 and amounts to discrimination prohibited by Article 15(1).
Important Facts
1. The contested provision was Paragraph IV(10) of the 2019 Uttar Pradesh Government Order.
2. The Court emphasized that dependency is a factual matter, not a function of gender or marital status.
3. It noted that even a son may not be dependent, yet the rule does not exclude a married son, highlighting the gender bias.
Exam Relevance
The case illustrates how the judiciary safeguards constitutional guarantees of equality (GS2). It underscores the importance of interpreting statutes without gender bias, a recurring theme in ethics and governance (GS4). The decision also impacts welfare schemes administered by state governments, link