Married Daughter Cannot Be Excluded From Fair Price Shop Compassionate Allotment Solely on Marital Status: Supreme Court
Case Name: Kulsum Nisha v. State of U.P. & Ors.
Citation: 2026 INSC 617
Date of Judgment/Order: 02 June 2026
Bench: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J. and Alok Aradhe, J.
Held: The Supreme Court held that exclusion of a married daughter from the definition of “family” for compassionate allotment of a fair price shop is constitutionally unsustainable when such exclusion is based solely on marital status. The Court held that dependency, financial need, local residence and ability to run the fair price shop are the relevant considerations, and marital status has no rational nexus with the object of the dependent quota. The expression “daughter” under Clause 2(p) of the Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016 must be purposively read to include a married daughter, provided she establishes dependency on the deceased dealer, furnishes the required documents and satisfies all eligibility conditions including local residence.
Summary: The appellant was the married daughter of a deceased fair price shop dealer in Amethi, Uttar Pradesh. After her mother’s death, she applied for allotment of the fair price shop under the dependent quota, asserting that she continued to reside with her mother and sisters even after marriage and was responsible for maintaining them, including one visually impaired sister. The authorities rejected her application solely on the ground that she was a married daughter and therefore excluded from the definition of “family” under the Government Order governing fair price shop allotments. The Allahabad High Court dismissed her writ petition while noting conflicting judicial views on the rights of married daughters in welfare schemes. The Supreme Court held that the exclusion was founded on the unconstitutional stereotype that a daughter, upon marriage, ceases to belong to or depend upon her parental family. Applying Articles 14, 15(1) and 21 of the Constitution, and adopting purposive construction, the Court held that the scheme must be interpreted in a manner that advances its welfare objective rather than defeats it through gender-based assumptions.
Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the orders dated 05.03.2025, 07.01.2025 and 16.07.2024 passed by the High Court, Deputy Commissioner and Sub-Divisional Magistrate respectively. The Court held that since the appellant’s application had been rejected only because she was a married daughter, and since that ground was constitutionally invalid, no impediment survived against granting relief. The competent authority was directed to issue the necessary allotment order in favour of the appellant within four weeks. The Court also overruled the contrary view taken in Saida Begum and Smt. Kusumlata, approved the approach in Vimla Srivastava and similar decisions of the Bombay, Karnataka and Calcutta High Courts, recorded appreciation for the assistance of the learned Amicus Curiae, and made no order as to costs.