Case Title: Kulsum Nisha v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
Citation: 2026 INSC 617
Appeal No.: Civil Appeal No. 7667 of 2025
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
Date of Decision: June 2, 2026
Background of the Case
The case arose from a Government Order dated August 5, 2019 issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh, which excluded married daughters from the definition of “family” for the purpose of compassionate allotment of fair price shops under the dependent quota. The definition under the Government Order specifically included husband or wife, dependent children, unmarried daughters, widowed daughters, legally separated daughters, and dependent parents – but notably excluded married daughters.The petitioner, Kulsum Nisha, a married daughter from Amethi in Uttar Pradesh, applied for allotment of a fair price shop under the dependent quota following the death of her mother, who had been running the shop since 2012. Even after her marriage, Kulsum Nisha continued to reside in the same village and actively assisted her mother in operating the fair price shop. She was also responsible for supporting her four sisters, including one who was visually impaired.Her application was rejected by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and subsequently by the Deputy Commissioner solely on the ground that she was a married daughter and therefore did not fall within the definition of “family” under the Government Order. The Allahabad High Court upheld the rejection on March 5, 2025, relying on earlier Division Bench decisions in Kusumlata v. State of U.P. (2021) and Saida Begum v. State of U.P. (2023). The Single Judge, however, granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, observing that the issue was of seminal importance as it concerned the rights of married daughters and had given rise to conflicting decisions across various High Courts.
Key Legal Issue
Whether the exclusion of a married daughter from the definition of “family” for compassionate allotment of fair price shops is constitutionally valid, and whether such exclusion violates the guarantees of equality and non-discrimination under the Constitution of India.
Check out this link:
https://lawhubb.in/what-to-do-when-police-arrest-you/.
Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court held that marriage does not sever a daughter’s bond with her parental family, and any rule or government order excluding married daughters from compassionate benefits is unconstitutional. The Court made the following key observations:
1. Marriage Neither Extinguishes the Bond Nor Presumes Absence of Dependency
Writing the judgment, Justice Alok Aradhe observed:
“Marriage neither extinguishes the bond between a daughter and her parental family nor furnishes a valid basis to presume absence of dependency. Contemporary social realities demonstrate that many married daughters continue to reside with, support, or remain dependent upon their parents. Dependency is a question of fact and cannot be conclusively determined by reference to marital status alone.” – Para 19
2. Violation of Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution
The Court held that the exclusion of married daughters based upon gender stereotypes violates Articles 14 (right to equality) and 15(1) (prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sex) of the Constitution. The Court expressly observed:
“The exclusion is founded solely upon marital status and gender stereotypes and consequently, violates Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution of India.”
The Court noted that no similar disability is attached to married sons, who continue to remain within the fold of the family irrespective of their marital status, whereas a daughter is excluded solely because she is married. Treating daughters differently after marriage amounts to gender-based discrimination and violates the guarantee of equality under the Constitution.
3. Marital Status Bears No Rational Nexus with the Object of the Scheme
The Court held that marital status bears no “rational nexus” to the object of allotting a fair price shop under the dependent quota, which is intended to provide “immediate succour” to the family of a deceased dealer facing financial hardship. The relevant considerations are dependency, financial need, residence, and the ability to discharge the responsibilities attached to the dealership – none of which are rationally connected to marital status.
4. Purposive Construction of Statutes
Applying the principle of purposive construction, the Court observed:
“When the language of an enactment is reasonably capable of more than one meaning, the Court is not merely permitted but is obliged to prefer that construction which promotes the provision and avoids a result that would be arbitrary or unjust.” – Para 24
The Court ruled that the expression “daughter” in Clause 2(p) of the Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016 must be read to include a married daughter, provided she establishes dependency on the deceased dealer and satisfies all other eligibility conditions, including the requirement of local residence.
5. Exclusion is Manifestly Arbitrary and Constitutionally Untenable
The Court declared that the omission of married daughters from the definition of “family” is manifestly arbitrary, unjustified, and constitutionally untenable. The Court noted that the purpose of the dependent quota is neither to create a right of succession or inheritance in the dealership nor to reward lineage – its object is limited and specific: to provide immediate financial relief to the dependent family of a deceased dealer. Once dependency is accepted as the governing criterion, exclusion of a married daughter solely on account of her marital status becomes wholly irrational and self-defeating.
6. Overruling of Contrary High Court Decisions
The Court expressly overruled the contrary views expressed in Kusumlata v. State of U.P. (2021) and Saida Begum v. State of U.P. (2023), holding that they did not lay down the correct law. The Court affirmed the reasoning adopted in Vimla Srivastava v. State of U.P. (2015) and approved the progressive views taken by the Bombay, Karnataka, and Calcutta High Courts on the issue.
Final Direction
The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the High Court, the Deputy Commissioner, and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, and directed the competent authority to issue the allotment order in favour of Kulsum Nisha within four weeks.
Significance of the Judgment
This judgment is a major step forward in dismantling patriarchal assumptions embedded in welfare policies. It affirms that:
· A daughter’s rights do not diminish upon marriage.
· The State cannot use marital status as a disqualification for schemes meant to alleviate family distress.
· Gender stereotyping – even if dressed in administrative policy – is subject to strict constitutional scrutiny.
· Dependency, financial need, and eligibility are the relevant considerations in welfare schemes, not whether a woman is married.
Practical Impact
· Married daughters across India can now claim compassionate appointments and PDS shop allotments on par with unmarried daughters, widowed mothers, or sons.
· Other state governments with similar exclusionary provisions will need to revise their rules.
· The judgment also serves as a template for challenging other welfare exclusions based on marital status.
Conclusion
Kulsum Nisha v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2026 INSC 617) is a landmark ruling that reaffirms the constitutional promise of equality under Articles 14 and 15(1). By holding that marriage does not erase a daughter’s identity or her entitlement to family benefits, the Supreme Court has struck a powerful blow against gender discrimination embedded in administrative law.