The Supreme Court has clarified that, on a purposive construction of Clause 2(p) of the Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016, the expression “daughters” includes a married daughter, provided she establishes dependency on the deceased dealer, is a local resident, furnishes the dependency certificate and No Objection Certificates from other adult family members, and satisfies the other eligibility conditions under the Government Order.
The Court therefore held that exclusion of married daughters from the definition of “family” fails the test of reasonable classification, is manifestly arbitrary, and is founded on marital status and gender stereotypes, thereby violating Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution. Accordingly, the Court quashed the orders of the High Court, the Deputy Commissioner, and the SDM, and directed the competent authority to issue the necessary allotment order in favour of the appellant.
A Two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe observed that the object of allotment under the dependent quota is to provide immediate succour to the family of a deceased dealer facing financial hardship and to ensure continuity in the functioning of the public distribution system. It held that the relevant considerations are dependency, financial need, residence, and the ability of the applicant to discharge the obligations attached to the dealership, and that marital status bears no rational nexus to these considerations.
The Bench further observed that the impugned exclusion rests on a constitutionally impermissible assumption that upon marriage a daughter ceases to be a member of, or dependent upon, her parental family. It emphasized that dependency is a question of fact and cannot be conclusively determined by marital status alone, and that a blanket exclusion of married daughters is based on gender-based stereotypes inconsistent with Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution.
Briefly, the appeal arose from the rejection of the appellant’s claim for allotment of a fair price shop on compassionate grounds after the death of her mother, who had been the original dealer of the shop in village Aariyawan, Tehsil Tiloi, District Amethi. After her mother’s death, the appellant applied before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for allotment of the shop under the dependent quota, asserting that she continued to reside with her mother and sisters even after marriage and was the sole earning member responsible for them, including one visually impaired sister.
The application was rejected by the SDM solely on the ground that she was a married daughter and therefore excluded from the definition of “family” under the relevant Government Order. That rejection was affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner and the High Court also dismissed the writ while noting that the issue involved a substantial question of law of general importance.
