CONSTITUTION OF INDIA – Articles 14, 15(1), 21 and 39(a) – Fair Price Shop Dealership – Compassionate/Dependent Quota – Exclusion of married daughter from definition of “family” – Constitutional validity.
Exclusion of a married daughter from the definition of “family” for the purpose of allotment of a fair price shop under the dependent quota, solely on the basis of marital status, is constitutionally impermissible. Dependency, financial need, residence and ability to run the dealership are the relevant considerations. Marital status bears no rational nexus with the object of the scheme. Paras 18, 19, 22, 23.
Article 14 – Reasonable Classification – Married daughter excluded while married son included – Gender stereotype – Invalid classification.
A classification which treats a married daughter differently from a married son and proceeds on the assumption that upon marriage a daughter ceases to belong to her parental family is founded upon gender stereotypes and historical notions of inequality. Such classification lacks an intelligible differentia having rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved and violates Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution. Paras 19, 20, 23.
Dependency – Question of fact – Cannot be determined solely by marital status.
Dependency is a factual issue which must be determined on the basis of actual circumstances. It cannot be conclusively presumed that a married daughter is not dependent upon her parents merely because she is married. Equally, inclusion of a son cannot automatically establish dependency. Para 19.
Compassionate/Dependent Allotment Scheme – Object of scheme.
The purpose of allotment of a fair price shop under the dependent quota is not to create a right of inheritance or succession in the dealership but to provide immediate financial relief to the dependent family of the deceased dealer and to ensure continuity of the public distribution system. Paras 15, 22.
Local Residence Requirement – Married daughter – Blanket exclusion impermissible.
Whether a married daughter satisfies the requirement of local residence is a matter to be determined on the facts of each case. A blanket exclusion of all married daughters on the speculative assumption that they necessarily reside in their matrimonial homes is constitutionally unsustainable. Para 21.
Doctrine of Purposive Construction – Welfare legislation – Interpretation consistent with constitutional values.
Where literal interpretation of a provision produces a result inconsistent with constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination, the Court must adopt a purposive interpretation which advances the object of the scheme and avoids arbitrary or unjust consequences. Paras 24, 25.
Purposive Interpretation – Expression ‘unmarried, legally separated and widowed daughters’ – Inclusion of married daughters.
The expression “unmarried, legally separated and widowed daughters” occurring in the definition of family is illustrative and not exhaustive. In the context of a welfare-oriented scheme, the expression must be construed to include married daughters who establish dependency and satisfy all other eligibility requirements. Paras 25, 26.
Welfare Schemes – Constitutional Interpretation – Gender Equality.
Welfare schemes must be interpreted in a manner consistent with constitutional commitments to substantive equality and social justice. Marital status cannot constitute a valid ground to deny benefits to an otherwise eligible daughter where dependency remains established. Paras 14, 23, 25, 27.
Public Distribution System – Fair Price Shop – Married daughter residing with deceased dealer and assisting in shop operations – Entitlement.
Where a married daughter continued to reside with her mother even after marriage, actively assisted in operating the fair price shop, remained dependent upon the family and assumed responsibility of maintaining other dependent sisters after the mother's death, rejection of her claim solely on the ground of marriage was arbitrary and illegal. Paras 28, 29.
Constitutional Law – Manifest Arbitrariness – Gender-based presumptions.
State action founded upon presumptions that a married daughter automatically ceases to be part of her parental family and loses all dependency upon it is manifestly arbitrary and violative of constitutional guarantees of equality. Paras 19, 20, 23.
Ratio Decidendi
For the purpose of allotment of a fair price shop under the dependent quota, dependency and fulfilment of eligibility conditions are the governing considerations. Exclusion of a married daughter solely on the basis of marital status is founded upon impermissible gender stereotypes, violates Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution and frustrates the object of the welfare scheme. The expression “daughter” in Clause 2(p) of the Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution) Control Order, 2016 includes a married daughter who establishes dependency, local residence and satisfies other prescribed eligibility conditions. Paras 18–26.
Principles of Law Declared
- Marital status is not a valid criterion to determine dependency. Para 19.
- Married daughters cannot be excluded from welfare benefits solely because of marriage. Paras 20, 23.
- Dependency is a factual issue requiring individual determination. Paras 19, 21.
- Welfare schemes must be interpreted consistently with Articles 14 and 15. Paras 14, 24, 25.
- Purposive interpretation must prevail where literal interpretation produces unconstitutional results. Paras 24, 25.
- The expression “daughter” includes married daughters if dependency and other eligibility conditions are established. Paras 25, 26.
Cases Referred
- Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar – relied upon – Para 17.
- Budhan Choudhry v. State of Bihar – relied upon – Para 17.
- Shayara Bano v. Union of India – referred – Para 17.
- K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India – referred – Para 17.
- Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India – referred – Para 17.
- Shailesh Dhairyawan v. Mohan Balkrishan Lulla – relied upon – Para 24.
- Vimla Srivastava v. State of U.P. – approved – Para 27.
- Saida Begum v. State of U.P. – overruled – Para 27.
- Smt. Kusumlata v. State of U.P. – overruled – Para 27.
Kulsum Nisha v. State of U.P. & Ors., Civil Appeal No.7667 of 2025, decided on 02-06-2026 (Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, JJ.).
