Dr. Nivedita Sharma

The Indian judiciary has once again proven that justice is always a powerful tool to protect equality, dignity, and human rights, while adapting to the changing realities of society. The recent Supreme Court decision, which held unconstitutional the exclusion of married daughters from the benefits of compassionate appointment and dependent quotas, will go down in Indian judicial history as a significant and far-reaching decision for women’s rights.

In fact, this decision challenges the mindset that tends to consider a daughter, after marriage, separate from her parents’ family. Sometimes for the parents themselves, and sometimes for the brothers and other relatives. The bench comprising Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe clearly stated that excluding a married daughter from the definition of “family” is arbitrary, unreasonable, and contrary to the Constitution’s principle of equality.

The Court’s profound observation today demonstrates that marriage neither ends the relationship between a daughter and her parents nor provides grounds for assuming that she is no longer dependent on her family.

Furthermore, this statement reflects the true state of Indian society, where countless married daughters care for their parents, become their economic and social support, and shoulder the full responsibility of their families in difficult circumstances.

You could also argue that in Kulsum Nisha’s case, the Court interpreted the law in a new way, emphasizing the realities of life. The petitioner was responsible for the maintenance of her sisters, including a visually impaired sister, after her mother’s death.

They lived with her and assisted in the operation of the fair price shop. Despite this, her application was rejected because she was married. Now, the Court has declared this very ground unconstitutional.

This decision demonstrates that the judiciary prioritizes a person’s actual circumstances, not stereotypes. In fact, this decision extends the fundamental spirit of the Indian Constitution. Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality before the law to all citizens, while Article 15 prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender.

If a married son can be considered a member of the family, then denying a married daughter that right simply because of marriage is clearly gender discrimination. By eliminating this inequality, the Supreme Court has once again conveyed the message that rights are determined based on a person’s ability, need, and actual situation, not on their gender or marital status.

Now, if we consider this decision in the Indian context, it becomes clear that this is not an isolated example. The Indian judiciary’s past is replete with decisions that consistently strengthen the rights of women and daughters.

In 2020, the Supreme Court, in its decision in the case of Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma, clarified that daughters have equal rights to ancestral property as sons from birth. This decision provided a progressive interpretation of Hindu Succession Law, establishing that daughters are equal heirs to the family, not secondary members.

Even before this, in various cases, the Court has strengthened women’s property rights, dignified life, safety at the workplace, and equal opportunities, in accordance with the fundamental spirit of the Constitution.

If we look at the broader history of the Indian judicial tradition, it would be unfair to say that there has been a lack of justice for women or daughters. In Indian culture and judicial philosophy, women are considered the center of respect.

There is also a famous saying in Manusmriti, “Yatra naryastu pujyante ramante tatra devataah.” This means that where women are respected, there prosperity, harmony, and excellence reside. Although many distortions have occurred in social behavior over time and some traditions have been misused, the core tenor of Indian judicial philosophy has always been in favor of women’s respect and protection.

The Yagyavalkya Smriti, Narada Smriti, and other ancient legal texts recognize women’s rights and their rights. In Indian civilization, the mother is held in the highest regard, the daughter is revered, and the central role of women in the family system is recognized.

The Constitution of modern India builds on this cultural foundation by combining it with democratic values. Therefore, when the Supreme Court protects the rights of daughters, it not only adheres to modern constitutional values ​​but also advances the noblest aspect of the Indian judicial tradition, which holds the dignity of the individual supreme.

The most important message of this Supreme Court decision is that family transcends the formal definition of blood ties and encompasses responsibility, affection, cooperation, and interdependence. In today’s social environment, the assumption that a daughter’s relationship with her parents ends after marriage is unrealistic.

In many families, daughters are their parents’ greatest strength and support. Therefore, denying them the benefits of any welfare scheme, compassionate appointment, or dependent quota based on their marital status is against both justice and equality.

This decision is a message of hope for millions of daughters who are shouldering the responsibilities of their families and fulfilling their role in society. It also serves as a clear directive to the administrative system to implement welfare schemes in accordance with constitutional values, rather than based on outdated and irrelevant notions.

This decision by the Indian judiciary deserves special praise because it sends a broad social message: a daughter remains a daughter even after marriage; her rights, responsibilities, and relationships with her family do not end with any marital bond.

Undoubtedly, this Supreme Court decision is an excellent example of the sensitivity, progressiveness, and fairness of the Indian judicial system. This decision will be remembered in the future as an important guide in the areas of women’s empowerment, gender equality, and social justice, and will continue to send the message that in India’s judicial system, a daughter is never a stranger; she is always an equal partner in rights and respect.

(The author is the Chairperson of Madhya Pradesh Child Rights Protection Commission)