Kulsum Nisha v. State of U.P.

Married Daughter Cannot Be Excluded from Compassionate Appointment: Supreme Court Upholds Equality and Strikes Down Discriminatory Practice Case: Kuls

Married Daughter Cannot Be Excluded from Compassionate Appointment: Supreme Court Upholds Equality and Strikes Down Discriminatory Practice

Case: Kulsum Nisha v. State of U.P.
Date of Judgment: 2 June 2026
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe

In a landmark judgment reinforcing constitutional guarantees of equality and gender justice, the Supreme Court of India has held that a married daughter cannot be excluded from compassionate appointment or other compassionate benefits solely because of her marital status.

The ruling came in the case of Kulsum Nisha v. State of U.P. (2026), where the Court declared that denying compassionate benefits to an otherwise eligible daughter merely because she is married amounts to discrimination and violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.

The judgment is significant because many government schemes and administrative orders across India have traditionally presumed that a daughter ceases to be a member of her parental family after marriage. Rejecting this outdated assumption, the Supreme Court observed that such a classification is unconstitutional and perpetuates gender stereotypes that have no place in a modern constitutional democracy.

The Court further clarified that marital status alone cannot be a valid basis for denying welfare measures intended to support families facing financial hardship after the death of a breadwinner.

---

Why This Judgment Matters

The decision goes beyond the issue of compassionate appointment.

It addresses a larger constitutional question:

Can the State deny welfare benefits to a daughter merely because she is married?

The Supreme Court answered this question with a firm "No."

The judgment strengthens:

• Gender equality in public employment;

• Equal treatment of sons and daughters;

• Women's economic rights;

• Constitutional protections against discrimination.

It also provides relief to thousands of women who have been denied compassionate appointments, licences, and other welfare benefits solely on the basis of marriage.

---

Background of the Case

The appellant, Kulsum Nisha, was the married daughter of a woman who operated a fair price shop under the Public Distribution System in Uttar Pradesh.

Despite her marriage, Kulsum Nisha continued to reside in the same village and remained closely associated with her mother's business.

She regularly assisted her mother in operating the fair price shop and played an active role in managing its affairs.

Apart from helping with the shop, she also took responsibility for caring for family members, including her physically impaired sister.

Following the death of her mother, Kulsum Nisha applied for the transfer of the fair price shop licence in her favour on compassionate grounds.

However, her application was rejected.

The authorities relied upon a 2019 Government Order issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh, which excluded married daughters from the definition of "family."

As a result, despite her involvement in running the shop and supporting the family, she was considered ineligible solely because she was married.

Aggrieved by the rejection, she approached the courts.

---

Conflicting Views in the Allahabad High Court

While hearing the matter, the Allahabad High Court noticed that different benches had taken contradictory positions regarding the rights of married daughters.

View Supporting Married Daughters

In Vimal Srivastava v. State of U.P., the Allahabad High Court held that excluding married daughters from compassionate appointment was unconstitutional.

The Court reasoned that such exclusion violated the equality provisions of the Constitution.

---

View Against Married Daughters

However, later judgments such as:

• Kusumlata v. State of U.P.

• Saida Begum v. State of U.P.

upheld the exclusion of married daughters under the 2019 Government Order.

These decisions effectively denied married daughters access to compassionate benefits.

---

Views of Other High Courts

The Allahabad High Court also took note of judgments from other High Courts that had adopted a more progressive approach.

For instance, the:

• Bombay High Court

• Karnataka High Court

had held that denying benefits solely on the ground of marriage was unconstitutional.

In particular, the Bombay High Court's decision in Ranjana Murlidhar Anerao v. State of Maharashtra emphasized that marriage does not sever a daughter's relationship with her parental family.

Because of these conflicting judicial opinions, the matter eventually reached the Supreme Court.

---

The Supreme Court's Observations

Marriage Cannot Be a Ground for Exclusion

The Supreme Court held that the exclusion of married daughters from welfare measures is discriminatory and constitutionally impermissible.

The Court observed that similar restrictions are not imposed on sons after marriage.

A married son continues to be treated as a member of the family for compassionate benefits.

Therefore, imposing a disability only upon daughters amounts to unequal treatment based on gender.

The Court stated:

"The appellant's application was rejected on the ground that she is a married daughter. Such a ground is constitutionally invalid. Marital status cannot constitute a valid basis for denying a welfare measure to an otherwise eligible daughter."

This observation became the central principle of the judgment.

---

Violation of Articles 14 and 15

The Supreme Court held that such exclusion violates:

Article 14

Article 14 guarantees equality before law and equal protection of laws.

Any classification created by the State must be reasonable and based on an intelligible differentia.

The Court found no rational basis for excluding married daughters while including married sons.

---

Article 15

Article 15 prohibits discrimination based on sex.

The Court held that the exclusion indirectly discriminated against women because only daughters were adversely affected by the rule.

Such discrimination cannot be justified under constitutional principles.

---

Approval of Bombay and Karnataka High Court Judgments

The Supreme Court expressly approved the approach adopted by the Bombay and Karnataka High Courts.

According to the Court, these decisions correctly interpreted constitutional values of equality and non-discrimination.

The Court observed that modern constitutional jurisprudence requires courts to reject stereotypes that presume a daughter loses all connection with her parental family after marriage.

Such assumptions no longer reflect social realities.

---

Allahabad High Court's Contrary View Overruled

The Supreme Court held that the decision in Saida Begum v. State of U.P. (2023) did not lay down the correct law.

Consequently, the Court overruled the contrary position adopted by the Allahabad High Court.

This clarification settles the legal position and removes uncertainty regarding the eligibility of married daughters for compassionate benefits.

---

Importance of the Facts in Kulsum Nisha's Case

The Supreme Court also examined the specific facts of the case.

The Court noted that:

• Kulsum Nisha continued to reside in the same village after marriage.

• She actively participated in the operation of the fair price shop.

• She assisted her mother in managing the business.

• She cared for family members, including her disabled sister.

• She remained closely connected to the household even after marriage.

These facts clearly demonstrated that she continued to shoulder family responsibilities.

Therefore, rejecting her claim solely because she was married was arbitrary and unjust.

---

Relief Granted by the Supreme Court

Having found the exclusion unconstitutional, the Supreme Court granted relief to the appellant.

The Court:

• Set aside the orders rejecting her claim.

• Directed the competent authorities to issue the fair price shop licence in her favour.

• Ordered compliance within four weeks.

The judgment ensured that the appellant received the benefit that had been unlawfully denied to her.

---

Understanding Compassionate Appointment

What Is Compassionate Appointment?

Compassionate appointment is a welfare-oriented scheme designed to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased employee who dies while in service.

The objective is not to provide employment as a matter of right.

Instead, it seeks to prevent the family from falling into financial distress following the sudden loss of its primary earning member.

Because of this special purpose, compassionate appointment is considered an exception to the normal recruitment process.

---

Why Compassionate Appointment Exists

The scheme aims to:

• Protect families from financial hardship.

• Ensure economic stability after the death of a breadwinner.

• Provide immediate relief to dependents.

• Prevent families from falling into poverty.

Courts have repeatedly recognized that compassionate appointment is a welfare measure rather than a regular mode of public employment.

---

Constitutional Principles Governing Compassionate Appointment

Even though compassionate appointment is a welfare scheme, it must still comply with constitutional guarantees.

The Supreme Court reiterated that:

Equality Is Mandatory

Every welfare scheme must satisfy the requirements of Article 14.

The State cannot create arbitrary classifications.

---

Gender Neutrality Is Essential

Government policies cannot discriminate against women merely because of traditional social assumptions.

Benefits available to sons must generally be available to daughters unless a constitutionally valid distinction exists.

---

Marriage Does Not End Family Membership

The Court rejected the notion that a daughter ceases to be a member of her parental family after marriage.

In contemporary society, daughters often continue to support, maintain, and care for their parents even after marriage.

Therefore, marital status alone cannot determine eligibility.

---

Broader Impact of the Judgment

The ruling has implications beyond fair price shop licences.

It may influence:

• Compassionate appointments in government service.

• Transfer of licences on compassionate grounds.

• Welfare schemes linked to family status.

• State policies defining family members.

• Future challenges against discriminatory administrative rules.

The judgment sends a clear message that government policies must align with constitutional values and cannot perpetuate outdated gender stereotypes.

---

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

• A married daughter cannot be excluded from compassionate appointment solely because she is married.

• Marital status is not a valid ground for denying welfare benefits.

• Such exclusion violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.

• The Supreme Court approved the views of the Bombay and Karnataka High Courts.

• The contrary view adopted in Saida Begum v. State of U.P. (2023) was overruled.

• Marriage does not automatically sever a daughter's relationship with her parental family.

• Compassionate schemes must be implemented in a gender-neutral and constitutionally compliant manner.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's judgment in Kulsum Nisha v. State of U.P. (2026) represents another important step toward achieving substantive gender equality in India. By holding that a married daughter cannot be excluded from compassionate appointment or similar welfare benefits merely because of her marital status, the Court reaffirmed the constitutional commitment to equality, dignity, and non-discrimination.

The decision recognizes the changing realities of Indian society, where daughters continue to support and care for their families irrespective of marriage. More importantly, it rejects outdated stereotypes that treat sons and daughters differently under welfare laws. As a result, the judgment is likely to have a lasting impact on compassionate appointment policies and other welfare schemes across the country, ensuring that constitutional values prevail over discriminatory administrative practices.