Holding

The exclusion of married daughters from the definition of "family" is unconstitutional; the term "daughters" must be read to include married daughters who satisfy the dependency criteria.

Summary

The appellant, a married daughter, applied for allotment of a fair‑price shop under the dependent quota after her mother, the previous dealer, died. The Sub‑Divisional Magistrate and the Deputy Commissioner rejected her claim, relying on a clause in the 2016 Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities Order that excluded "married daughters" from the definition of "family". The appellant argued that the exclusion violated Articles 14, 15(1), 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution as it was based solely on marital status and gender stereotypes. The Supreme Court examined the classification test under Article 14 and held that marital status bears no rational nexus to the scheme's purpose of providing immediate financial relief to dependents of a deceased dealer. Applying a purposive construction, the Court read the term "daughters" in the Order to include married daughters who satisfy dependency, residence and other eligibility criteria. Consequently, the Court quashed the orders of the High Court, Deputy Commissioner and SDM and directed the competent authority to allot the shop to the appellant, allowing the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the exclusion of married daughters from the definition of "family" under Clause 2(p) of the 2016 Order is constitutionally valid.
Whether the classification based on marital status violates Articles 14, 15(1), 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution.
Whether a purposive construction of the term "daughters" can include married daughters for the purpose of the dependent quota.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 15(1), s. Article 19(1)(g), s. Article 21, s. Article 39(a), s. Article 39(c)
Essential Commodities Act, 1955s. 3

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the denial of allotment of the fair price shop to the appellant-married daughter in her capacity as a dependent, since the appellant is a married daughter and not covered within the definition of ‘family’ as defined under Clause 2(p) of (IV)10 of the G.O. Headnotes† Essential Commodities Act, 1955 – s.3 – Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016 – Clause 7(2)(i) – Appointment of fair price shop under dependent quota after death of dealer

Subjects

fair price shopdependent quotamarital status discriminationEssential Commodities ActArticle 14Article 15purposive constructionwelfare schemeconstitutional equality

Judgment

[2026] 7 S.C.R. 21 : 2026 INSC 617

Kulsum Nisha
v.
State of U.P. & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 7667 of 2025 )
02 June 2026
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Issue arose as regards the denial of allotment of the fair price shop
to the appellant-married daughter in her capacity as a dependent,
since the appellant is a married daughter and not covered within
the definition of ‘family’ as defined under Clause 2(p) of the 2016
Order and as referred to in Paragraph (IV)10 of the G.O.

Headnotes†
Essential Commodities Act, 1955 – s.3 – Uttar Pradesh
Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution
Control) Order, 2016 – Clause 7(2)(i) – Appointment of fair price
shop under dependent quota after death of dealer – Appellant’s
mother-allottee of a fair price shop, passed away and the order
of attachment passed of the fair price shop – Appellant-married
daughter, then filed an application before the SDM seeking
allotment of the shop in her capacity as a dependent – Appellant
was the sole earning member of the household responsible for
her four sisters, one of whom is visually impaired, and even
after her marriage she continued to reside with her mother
and sisters – SDM rejected the application since the appellant
is a married daughter and not covered within the definition of
‘family’ as provided in G.O – Deputy Commissioner affirmed
the order of the SDM – High Court also rejected the claim of
the appellant, for appointment as a fair price shop dealer on
compassionate ground – Correctness:
Held: Marital status cannot constitute a valid ground for denying
the benefit of a welfare measure to an otherwise eligible daughter –
Exclusion of a married daughter from the definition of “family”
cannot be sustained – Scheme providing allotment under the
dependent quota upon the death of a dealer is intended to mitigate
the immediate hardship suffered by the family of the deceased
* Author
22 [2026] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

dealer and to ensure continuity in the functioning of the public
distribution system – Relevant considerations are dependency,
financial need, residence, and the ability of the applicant to
discharge the obligations attached to the dealership – Marital
status bears no rational nexus to any of these considerations –
Exclusion of married daughters from the definition of “family” fails
the test of reasonable classification and is manifestly arbitrary –
Distinction created by Paragraph IV(10) of the G.O. lacks any
intelligible differentia having a rational nexus with the object of
the scheme – Exclusion is founded solely upon marital status and
gender stereotypes and consequently, violates Arts.14 and 15(1)
of the Constitution – On a purposive construction of Clause
2(p) of 2016 Order, the expression “daughters” used in the said
provision includes a married daughter who furnishes a dependency
certificate along with No Objection Certificates from other adult
family members of the deceased dealer and is a local resident
and satisfies all other eligibility conditions prescribed in the G.O. –
Provision, so construed, would neither suffer from any invalidity
nor any constitutional infirmity – It is saved by the very meaning
it bears when understood in the light of its purpose – Material on
record establishes that the appellant continued to reside in the
same village even after her marriage and actively assisted her
mother in the operation of the fair price shop – Appellant upon
her mother’s demise, assumed responsibility for maintaining her
sisters, including a visually impaired sister – Authorities have not
disputed these factual assertions – Sole ground on which her
application was rejected was that she is a married daughter – Once
that ground is held to be constitutionally invalid, no impediment
survives to the grant of relief in her favour – Orders passed by
the High Court, Deputy Commissioner and the SDM respectively
quashed and set aside. [Paras 15, 18, 23-29]

Doctrines/Principles – Doctrine of purposive construction –
Meaning:
Held: Principle of purposive construction is based on the
understanding that the Court is supposed to attach that meaning to
a provision which serves the purpose behind it, the basic approach
being to ascertain is what the provision is designed to accomplish –
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
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 23

Kulsum Nisha v. State of U.P. & Ors.

a result that would be arbitrary or unjust – Court should adopt
purposive interpretation in cases where the literal interpretation
may not serve the purpose or may lead to absurdity. [Para 24]

Case Law Cited
Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia & Ors. v. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar & Ors.
[1959] 1 SCR 279: 1958 SCC OnLine SC 6 – followed.
Agnigundala Venkata Ranga Rao v. Indukuru Ramachandra
Reddy (D) by Lrs. & Ors. [2017] 4 SCR 816 : (2017) 7 SCC 694;
Kishan Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [1955] 2 SCR
531 : (1955) 2 SCC 136; T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors. v. State
of Karnataka & Ors., [2002] Supp. 3 SCR 587 : (2002) 8 SCC
481; Govt. of A.P. & Anr. v. Maharashi Publishers Pvt. Ltd. &
Ors. (2003) 1 SCC 95; Amita v. U.O.I. & Anr. [2005] Supp. 2
SCR 565 : (2005) 13 SCC 721; State of U.P. & Ors. v. Maqbool
Ahmad, [2006] Supp. 5 SCR 375 : (2006) 7 SCC 521; Soma
Chakravarty v. State Thr. CBI [2007] 6 SCR 324 : (2007) 5 SCC
403; State of Punjab & Anr. v. Balkaran Singh [2006] Supp. 7 SCR
298 : (2006) 12 SCC 709; State of Karnataka v. C.N. Apoorva
Shree, Order dated 17.12.2021; Savita Samvedi (Ms) and Anr.
Union of India & Ors. [1996] 1 SCR 1046 : (1996) 2 SCC 380;
C.B. Muthama v. Union of India [1980] 1 SCR 668 : (1979) 4 SCC
260; Director of Treasuries in Karnataka and Anr. v. V. Somyashree
[2021] 7 SCR 649 : (2021) 12 SCC 20; State of Maharashtra and
Anr. v. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate [2022] 7 SCR 251 : 2022 SCC
OnLine 1327; Budhan Choudhry v. State of Bihar & Ors. [1955]
1 SCR 1045 : (1954) 2 SCC 791; Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co.
Ltd. v. Bombay Environmental Action Group & Ors. [2006] 2 SCR
920 : (2006) 3 SCC 434; A.P. Dairy Development Corporation
Federation v. B.Narasimha Reddy [2011] 14 SCR 1 : (2011) 9 SCC
286; Shayara Bano v. Union of India & Ors. [2017] 9 SCR 797 :
(2017) 9 SCC 1; K.S. Puttuswamy & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
[2017] 10 SCR 569 : (2017) 10 SCC 1; Nikesh Tarachand Shah
v. Union of India & Anr. [2017] 12 SCR 358 : (2018) 11 SCC 1;
Shailesh Dhairyawan v. Mohan Balkrishan Lulla [2015] 12 SCR
70 : (2016) 3 SCC 619 – referred to.
Ranjana Murlidhar Anerao v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2014
(5) Mah LJ 543; State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Purnima Das &
Ors., 2017 SCC OnLine Cal 13121; Anjana Modak v. State of West
Bengal & Ors., 2019 SCC OnLine Cal 6775; Sulekha Gorain v.
24 [2026] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

State of West Bengal & Ors., 2019 SCC OnLine Cal 9354;
Smt. G.V. Hemavathi v. State of Karnataka & Ors.; Writ Pet. No.
51361 pf 2019 (GM-PDS); Indira & Anr. v. State of Karnataka &
Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine Kar 6749; Bhuvaneshwari V. Puranik v.
State of Karnataka, Department of Personnel and Administrative
Reforms & Ors., 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 3397; Kusumlata v. State
of U.P. & Ors. U.P., 2021 SCC OnLine All 826; Sripalli Ammulu v.
State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine AP 4718;
Aparna Narendra Zambre & Anr. v. ASE Sangli and Ors., 2011 (5)
Mah LJ 290; Sou. Swara Sachin Kulkarni (Kumari Deepa Ashok
Kulkarni) v. Superintending Engineer, Pune Irrigation Project Circle
& Anr., 2013 SCC OnLine Bom 1549; Smt. Sarojini Bhoi v. State
of Chhattisgarh & Ors., 2015 SCC OnLine Chh 395; Deepa Rani
Das v. State of Assam & Ors., (2017) 4 Gau LR 423; Mamta
Devi v. State of H.P. & Ors., 2020 SCC OnLine HP 2125; Central
Coalfields Limited v. Hemanti Devi & Ors., 2018 SCC OnLine
Jhar 918; Manjula v. State of Karnataka; ILR 2004 KAR 4881; V.
Somyashree v. Director of Treasuries in Karnataka & Anr., ILR 2019
KAR 3139; Meenakshi Dubey v. M.P. Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran
Co. Ltd. & Ors., ILR 2020 MP 647; N. Uma v. Director of Elementary
School Education, DPI Compound & Ors., 2017 SCC OnLine Mad
37756; R. Govindammal v. The Principal Secretary, Social Welfare
and Nutritious Meal Programme Department & Ors. (2015) 3 LW
756; Bhanuprava Garnaik v. State of Odisha, 2022 SCC OnLine
Ori 4096; Kshirabadi Bala Behera v. Orissa Administrative Tribunal
(2022) W.P. (C) No. 14945 of 2015; Abha Kumari v. Bank of India &
Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine Pat 5529; Amarjit Kaur v. State of Punjab
& Anr., 2020 SCC OnLine P&H 4490; Meenakshi Trivedi v. State
of Rajasthan & Ors. (2024) 1 RLW 703; Shaheen Sultana & Anr. v.
State of Telangana & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine TS 1278; State of
Tripura & Ors. v. Debashri Chakraborty, 2022 SCC OnLine Tri 58;
Udham Singh Nagar District Co-op Bank & Anr. v. Anjula Singh &
Ors., AIR 2019 Utt 69 – referred to.
Smt. Vimla Srivastava v. State of U.P. & Anr, 2015 SCC OnLine
All 6776 – approved.
Smt. Kusumlata, Special Appeal No. 89 of 2022; Saida Begum
2023:AHC-LKO:11230-DB – disapproved.

List of Acts
Essential Commodities Act, 1955; Constitution of India.
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 25

Kulsum Nisha v. State of U.P. & Ors.

List of Keywords
Denial of allotment of fair price shop to married daughter in her
capacity as dependent; Definition of ‘family’; Exclusion of married
daughter from definition of ‘family’ as defined under Clause 2(p) of
the 2016 Order; Appointment of fair price shop under dependent
quota after death of dealer; Fair price shop; Order of attachment;
Appointment as a fair price shop dealer on compassionate ground.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7667 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.03.2025 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in WC No. 1401 of 2025

Appearances for Parties
Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Amicus Curiae.
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
Anand Verma, Vivek Sura, Ms. Simran Verma, Shreyuss Shankar
Joshi, Rohit Amit Sthalekar, Siddhant Singh.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
S. R. Singh, Sr. Adv., Ankur Prakash, Rajat Singh.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Alok Aradhe, J.

1. This appeal emanates from an order dated 05.03.2025 passed
by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
(hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”) by which the claim of
the appellant, who is a married daughter of the deceased dealer, for
appointment as a fair price shop dealer on compassionate ground,
has been rejected.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. On 27.10.2012, a fair price shop located at village panchayat
Aariyawan, Development Block and Tehsil Tiloi, District Amethi, was
allotted to Smt. Badrun Nisha who was the mother of the appellant.
26 [2026] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

3. In exercise of the powers under Section 3 of the Essential
Commodities Act, 1955 (‘1955 Act’), the UP Government through
Notification dated 10.08.2016 notified the Uttar Pradesh Essential
Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order,
2016 (‘2016 Order’). Clause 7(2)(i) of the 2016 Order refers to a
‘person appointed’ to run a fair price shop and does not prescribe any
eligibility criteria of marital status. The power to identify dependents
is delegated to the State Government. The State of Uttar Pradesh
issued G.O. No. 6 of 2019 on 05.08.2019 (‘G.O.’) governing the
‘identification, reservation, and appointment of fair price shops in rural
areas. Paragraph V of G.O. describes the procedure for appointment
of fair price shop under the dependent quota, after the death of the
dealer. Paragraph IV of G.O. prescribes the essential qualifications
and conditions for selection in rural areas. Sub-Paragraph 10 of
Paragraph IV, defines the expression ‘family’ which excludes ‘married
daughter’.
4. On 04.03.2024, the mother of the appellant passed away leaving, the
appellant as the sole earning member of the household responsible
for her four sisters, one of whom is visually impaired. The appellant
even after her marriage continued to reside with her mother and
sisters. The sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tiloi (‘SDM’) by an order dated
05.03.2024 ordered attachment of the fair price shop on the demise
of the dealer, namely the mother of the appellant. On 19.03.2024,
the appellant filed an application before the SDM seeking allotment
of the shop in her capacity as a dependent. The SDM, by an order
dated 16.07.2024, rejected the application solely on the ground that
the appellant is a married daughter and is not covered within the
definition of ‘family’ as provided in G.O. The Deputy Commissioner
by an order dated 07.01.2025 affirmed the order of the SDM and
dismissed the appeal.
5. The appellant challenged the aforesaid orders dated 16.07.2024
and 07.01.2025 passed by the SDM and the Deputy Commissioner
respectively, in a Writ Petition. The High Court by an order dated
05.03.2025 inter alia held that it is bound by the Division Bench
decisions of the High Court in Smt. Kusumlata1 and Saida Begum2

1 Special Appeal No.89 of 2022
2 2023:AHC-LKO:11230-DB
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 27

Kulsum Nisha v. State of U.P. & Ors.

and held that the appellant is not entitled for compassionate
appointment, as a dealer to run the fair price shop. The learned
Single Judge however, noted the contrary view taken by the Bombay
High Court3 and observed that the question raised is of seminal
importance, as it concerns the rights of married daughters who are
adversely affected solely on the ground of the marriage. The High
Court, therefore, granted a certificate under Article 134-A of the
Constitution of India and held that the matter involves a substantial
question of law of general importance. The writ petition was, however,
dismissed. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal arises
for our consideration.

SUBMISSIONS
6. Mr. Anand Verma, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
exclusion of married daughter from beneficial allotment scheme,
lacks any intelligible differentia or rational nexus with the object of the
scheme, and violates Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles
14, 15(1), 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is urged that
the marital status of a woman bears no constitutional relevance to
eligibility for a welfare scheme. It is pointed out that there is conflict
of opinion amongst the High Courts with regard to the eligibility
of the married daughters for welfare schemes, which warrants an
authoritative resolution by this Court to ensure consistency and
uniformity in the application of the Fundamental Rights. In support
of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the decisions of
the Calcutta and Karnataka High Courts4.
7. Mr. S.R. Singh, learned senior counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh,
on the other hand, submitted that the plea of discrimination involving
Articles 14, 15 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution is misconceived and the
classification between an unmarried daughter, a judicially separated
daughter and a married daughter is a reasonable classification and
the issue regarding violation of Articles 14, 15 and 19(1)(g) of the

3 Ranjana Murlidhar Anerao v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.; 2014 (5) Mah LJ 543
4 State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Purnima Das & Ors., 2017 SCC OnLine Cal 13121; Anjana Modak v. State
of West Bengal & Ors., 2019 SCC OnLine Cal 6775; Sulekha Gorain v. State of West Bengal & Ors., 2019
SCC OnLine Cal 9354; Smt. G.V. Hemavathi v. State of Karnataka & Ors.; Writ Pet. No.51361 pf 2019
(GM-PDS); Indira & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2024, SCC OnLine Kar 6749 and Bhuvaneshwari
V. Puranik v. State of Karnataka, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms & Ors., 2020
SCC OnLine Kar 3397
28 [2026] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Constitution of India does not arise, as discrimination is among the
same class. It is contended that one of the essential qualifications
mentioned in sub-Paragraph 5 of Paragraph IV of G.O. provides
that an applicant must be a local resident and it cannot be gainsaid
that a married daughter is not a resident of the village as she shifts
to her in-laws house in a different village. It is submitted that equal
protection means Right to Equal treatment in similar circumstances,
both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed and persons
who are unequally circumstanced cannot be treated on a par. In
support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on
the decisions of this Court5.
8. Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, learned Amicus Curiae submitted that the
compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of
public employment based on merit and open competition, which
is intended to provide immediate financial relief to the family of
deceased employee and is not a matter of inheritance or automatic
entitlement. It is urged that the same is granted on humanitarian
grounds to meet the sudden crisis occurring in a family on account
of death of breadwinner of a family. It is contended that marital status
alone of an applicant is an irrelevant consideration and would fall foul
of Articles 14 to 16 of the Constitution of India. It is urged that the
dependency is a pure question of fact which an applicant must satisfy
to be considered for appointment or allotment on compassionate
grounds. It is urged that the definition of ‘family’ as provided in the
scheme offends the object and purpose of the scheme and is violative
of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
9. It is submitted that the divergent views have been taken by various
High Courts with regard to entitlement of married daughters for
beneficial schemes. It is urged that impugned Clause excluding
married daughters, deserves to be struck down being violative of
Articles 14 to 16 of the Constitution. It is pointed out that in the instant
case, the appellant has actively assisted her mother in running the
fair price shop and on her demise has assumed the responsibility of

5 Agnigundala Venkata Ranga Rao v. Indukuru Ramachandra Reddy (D) by Lrs & Ors., (2017) 7 SCC
694; Kishan Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., (1955) 2 SCC 136; T.M.A. Pai Foundation &
Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., (2002) 8 SCC 481; Govt. of A.P. & Anr. v. Maharashi Publishers Pvt.
Ltd. & Ors., (2003) 1 SCC 95; Amita v. U.O.I. & Anr., (2005) 13 SCC 721; State of U.P. & Ors. v. Maqbool
Ahmad, (2006) 7 SCC 521; Soma Chakravarty v. State Thr. CBI, (2007) 5 SCC 403 and State of Punjab
& Anr. v. Balkaran Singh, (2006) 12 SCC 709
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 29

Kulsum Nisha v. State of U.P. & Ors.

maintaining visually impaired sister. It is, therefore, contended that the
application of the appellant ought to be considered on its own merit
by the competent authority. In support of the aforesaid submissions,
reliance has been placed on the decisions of this Court6 as well as
various High Courts7.
10. We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the
records.

RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF 2016 ORDER AND THE G.O.
11. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to make note of relevant
provisions of 2016 Order, and the G.O. Clause 2(p) of 2016 Order
defines ‘family’ means groups of following persons:
“● Head of the family
● Husband/wife, including legally adopted Children
● A
dult Children, who are fully dependent on the head
of the family
● nmarried, legally separated, and widowed daughters;
U
and
● Fully dependent mother/father of the head of the family.”

6 State of Karnataka v. C.N. Apoorva Shree (Order dated 17.12.2021); Savita Samvedi (Ms) and Anr.
Union of India & Ors., (1996) 2 SCC 380; C.B. Muthama v. Union of India, (1979) 4 SCC 260; Director of
Treasuries in Karnataka and Anr. v. V. Somyashree; (2021) 12 SCC 20; State of Maharashtra and Anr. v.
Madhuri Maruti Vidhate, 2022 SCC OnLine 1327
7 Smt. Vimla Srivastava v. State of U.P. & Anr., 2015 SCC OnLine All 6776; Kusumlata v. State of U.P. &
Ors. U.P., 2021 SCC OnLine All 826; Saida Begum (supra); Sripalli Ammulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh
& Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine AP 4718; Aparna Narendra Zambre & Anr. v. ASE Sangli and Ors., 2011 (5)
Mah LJ 290; Ranjana Murlidhar Anerao (supra); Sou. Swara Sachin Kulkarni (Kumari Deepa Ashok
Kulkarni) v. Superintending Engineer, Pune Irrigation Project Circle & Anr., 2013 SCC OnLine Bom 1549;
State of West Bengal (supra); Smt. Sarojini Bhoi v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., 2015 SCC OnLine Chh
395; Deepa Rani Das v. State of Assam & Ors., (2017) 4 Gau LR 423; Mamta Devi v. State of H.P. &
Ors., 2020 SCC OnLine HP 2125; Central Coalfields Limited v. Hemanti Devi & Ors., 2018 SCC OnLine
Jhar 918; Bhuvaneshwari V. Puranik (supra); Manjula v. State of Karnataka; ILR 2004 KAR 4881; V.
Somyashree v. Director of Treasuries in Karnataka & Anr., ILR 2019 KAR 3139; Meenakshi Dubey v.
M.P. Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. & Ors., ILR 2020 MP 647; N. Uma v. Director of Elementary
School Education, DPI Compound & Ors., 2017 SCC OnLine Mad 37756; R. Govindammal v. The
Principal Secretary, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department & Ors., (2015) 3 LW
756; Bhanuprava Garnaik v. State of Odisha, 2022 SCC OnLine Ori 4096; Kshirabadi Bala Behera v.
Orissa Administrative Tribunal, (2022) W.P. (C) No.14945 of 2015; Abha Kumari v. Bank of India & Ors.,
2024 SCC OnLine Pat 5529; Amarjit Kaur v. State of Punjab & Anr., 2020 SCC OnLine P&H 4490;
Meenakshi Trivedi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., (2024) 1 RLW 703; Shaheen Sultana & Anr. v. State of
Telangana & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine TS 1278; State of Tripura & Ors. v. Debashri Chakraborty, 2022
SCC OnLine Tri 58 and Udham Singh Nagar District Co-op Bank & Anr. v. Anjula Singh & Ors., AIR 2019
Utt 69
30 [2026] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

11.1 Clause 7 of 2016 Order deals with appointment and regulation
of fair price shop. Clause 7(2) empowers the State Government
to provide essential qualifications and conditions of eligibility
of a person entitled to run a fair price shop. Clause 7(2)(ii)
mandates a person who runs a fair price shop, to act as an
agent of the Government.
12. In pursuance of the 2016 Order, the State Government has issued
G.O. which provides for identification, reservation and appointment
of fair price shops in rural areas. Clause IV of the G.O. prescribes
the essential qualifications and conditions of selection in rural areas
which reads as under:
“IV. Essential Qualifications & Conditions for Selection
in Rural Areas:
1. Applicant must have a minimum balance of
Rs.4O,OO0/- in their bank account to ensure financial
capability to lift one month’s stock at once.
2. Applicant must submit a character certificate issued
by the District Magistrate.
3. Applicant must have passed at least High School
(10th standard) or equivalent examination.
4. Applicant must be at least 21 years old, and no
other family member, should be an allottee of a fair
price shop.
5. Applicant must be a local resident.
6. Applicant must deposit an earnest money of Rs.1000/-
via bank draft in favor of the District Supply Officer.
This amount will be adjusted in the security deposit
upon appointment.
7. Upon appointment, the applicant must deposit
Rs.10,000/- as security and submit a Rs.100/- non-
judicial stamp paper. This will apply to new appointees.
Existing dealers will be required to deposit security
at prescribed rates.
8. No criminal case should be registered against the
applicant or their family member, nor should they
have been convicted in any criminal matter.
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 31

Kulsum Nisha v. State of U.P. & Ors.

9. Neither the applicant nor any family member should
have been an allottee of a fair price shop previously
cancelled due to irregularities or involved in any
heinous offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential
Commodities Act, 1955, or any criminal offence under
the Indian Penal Code.
10. Allotment of fair price shops shall not be made
in favor of Gram Pradhan (Village Head) or their
family members. The definition of ‘’family’’ shall
be as provided under the Uttar Pradesh Essential
Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution)
Order, 2016, which is:
● Head of the family
● Husband/wife, including legally adopted Children
● Children fully dependent on the head of the
family
● Unmarried, legally separated, and widowed
daughters
● Parents fully dependent on the head of the family
11. If any fair price dealer or their family member, as
defined above, is elected as Gram Pradhan, the
allotment of their shop; shall be cancelled. This
provision shall be effective from Government Order
No.-276/29-6-02-162Sa()/01 dated 18.07.2002.”
13. Paragraph (V) of the G.O. deals with procedure for allotment of a
fair price shop under dependent quota after the death of the dealer.
Paragraph (V) of the G.O. reads as under:
“(V) Procedure for Appointment of Fair Price
Shop under Dependent Quota after Death of
Dealer:
(i) The dependent shall Submit an application to the
Sub-Divisional Magistrate within 30 days of the
dealer’s death, along with a dependency certificate
and No Objection Certificates (NOCs) from other
adult family members.
32 [2026] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

(ii) The dependent must fulfil the eligibility conditions
prescribed under Para-IV of this Government Order.
(iii) The definition of “family” under the dependent
category shall be as per Para-IV (10) of this order.
(iv) An additional period of 15 days may be given beyond
the initial 30 days for submitting the application.
(v) The eligibility of the dependent shall be examined
by the Tehsil Level Selection Committee, which will
verify the dependency certificate, NOCs from other
family members, and other documents.
(vi) Upon fulfilment of all conditions, the committee will
recommend allotment of the shop to the dependent.
(vii) The entire process shall be completed within two
months from the date of receipt of the application.
Clause (IV)5 requires that an applicant must be a local resident,
whereas Clause IV(10) excludes married daughter from the definition
of ‘family’.

REASONS AND ANALYSIS
14. Article 14 of the Constitution of India, guarantees equality before
the law and equal protection of the laws. Article 15(1) prohibits
discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of
birth. Article 21 protects the right to live with dignity. These guarantees
must be interpreted in light of the constitutional commitment to secure
social and economic justice embodied in the Directive Principles of
State Policy. Article 39(a), in particular, mandates that the State direct
its policy towards securing that men and women equally have the
right to an adequate means of livelihood. Article 39(c) provides that
the State shall direct its policy to ensure that operation of economic
system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of
production to the common detriment.
15. The 1955 Act and 2016 Order have been framed to ensure equitable
distribution of essential commodities through the public distribution
system. Fair price shop dealers perform an important public function
in furtherance of this constitutional objective. The scheme providing
allotment under the dependent quota upon the death of a dealer is
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 33

Kulsum Nisha v. State of U.P. & Ors.

intended to mitigate the immediate hardship suffered by the family
of the deceased dealer and to ensure continuity in the functioning
of the public distribution system.
16. The solitary issue which arises for consideration in this appeal is
whether exclusion of the married daughter from the definition of ‘family’
as defined under Clause 2(p) of the 2016 Order and as referred to
in Paragraph (IV)10 of the G.O. is constitutionally sustainable.
17. A Constitution Bench of this Court8 after taking note of a decision
rendered by seven Judge Bench of this Court9 has held that Article 14
of the Constitution forbids class legislation, but permits reasonable
classification for the purposes of legislation. A classification,
however, must satisfy two conditions, firstly, it must be founded
upon an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things
that are grouped together from others left out of the group, and
secondly the differentia must have a rational relation to the object
sought to be achieved by the statute in question. The doctrine of
equality has, over time, evolved beyond a narrow classification test.
State action, which is arbitrary, irrational, capricious, or founded
on impermissible stereotypes is equally vulnerable to challenge
under Article 1410.
18. Examined on the touchstone of these principles, the exclusion of a
married daughter from the definition of “family” cannot be sustained.
The object of allotment under the dependent quota is 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 of the applicant to discharge the obligations
attached to the dealership. Marital status bears no rational nexus to
any of these considerations.
19. The impugned provision proceeds on the assumption that upon
marriage a daughter ceases to be a member of, or dependent
upon, her parental family. Such an assumption is constitutionally

8 Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia & Ors. v. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar & Ors., 1958 SCC OnLine SC 6
9 Budhan Choudhry v. State of Bihar & Ors., (1954) 2 SCC 791
10 Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Bombay Environmental Action Group & Ors., (2006) 3 SCC 434;
A.P. Dairy Development Corporation Federation v. B. Narasimha Reddy, (2011) 9 SCC 286; Shayara
Bano v. Union of India & Ors., (2017) 9 SCC 1; K.S. Puttuswamy & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., (2017)
10 SCC 1; Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India & Anr., (2018) 11 SCC 1`
34 [2026] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

impermissible. 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. Equally, there
may be sons who are not dependent upon the family despite being
included within the definition. Dependency is a question of fact and
cannot be conclusively determined by reference to marital status
alone.
20. Significantly, the scheme does not exclude a married son from
consideration. A son continues to remain within the fold of the family
irrespective of his martial status, whereas a daughter is excluded
solely because she is married. The distinction is founded upon a
gender-based stereotype that a daughter, upon marriage, becomes
a member of another family and loses all ties with her natal family.
Such a presumption is incompatible with the constitutional guarantee
of equality and perpetuates historical notions of gender inequality
which the Constitution seeks to eradicate.
21. The submission of the State that a married daughter may not satisfy
the requirement of local residence is equally untenable. Residence
constitutes an independent eligibility criterion under Paragraph IV(5)
of the G.O. Whether an applicant satisfies that requirement must be
determined on the facts of each case. A blanket exclusion of all married
daughters cannot be justified on the speculative assumption that
every married daughter necessarily resides elsewhere. Constitutional
adjudication cannot be founded on presumptions that are overbroad
and disconnected from lived realities.
22. The purpose of the dependent quota is neither to create a right of
succession or inheritance in the dealership nor a reward for lineage.
The object is limited and specific: to provide immediate financial
relief to the dependent family of a deceased dealer and to ensure
continuity in the public distribution system. 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.
23. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the exclusion of
married daughters from the definition of “family” fails the test of
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 35

Kulsum Nisha v. State of U.P. & Ors.

reasonable classification and is manifestly arbitrary. The distinction
created by Paragraph IV(10) of the G.O. lacks any intelligible
differentia having a rational nexus with the object of the scheme.
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 DOCTRINE OF PURPOSIVE CONSTRUCTION
24. Now, we advert to the issue whether the words “unmarried, legally
separated and widowed daughters” are required to be struck down
or can be read in a manner so as to include married daughters.
The literal meaning of aforesaid words employed in Clause 2(p)
of the 2016 Order produces a result which is incompatible with
constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination. The
principle of purposive construction is based on the understanding
that the Court is supposed to attach that meaning to a provision
which serves the purpose behind it, the basic approach being to
ascertain is what the provision is designed to accomplish. 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. The Court should adopt purposive
interpretation in cases where the literal interpretation may not serve
the purpose or may lead to absurdity11.
25. Bearing in mind the object of the provision, that is to provide
immediate financial relief to the dependent family of the deceased
dealer and to ensure continuity of public distribution system, on
purposive interpretation, the words “unmarried, legally separated
and widowed daughters” in Clause 2(p) of 2016 Order, have to be
read so as to include married daughters provided they fulfil other
eligibility conditions laid down in G.O. for the following reasons: -
(i) The words “unmarried, legally separated and widowed
daughters” illustrate the specific categories of daughters who are
expressly included. There is no express language of exclusion.
The enumeration is a description of class of daughters who

11 Shailesh Dhairyawan v. Mohan Balkrishan Lulla, (2016) 3 SCC 619
36 [2026] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

by reason of remaining in or returning to natal household, are
most visibly placed in position of dependency. The absence of
exclusionary language in respect of married daughters reflects
an illustrative and not exhaustive character of enumeration;
(ii) The 2016 Order in Clause 2(p) itself defines one of the categories
of family members as “Adult children who are fully dependent
on the head of the family”, without any qualification of marital
status or gender.
(iii) The object of dependent quota is unambiguously welfare
oriented, that is to provide for immediate financial relief to
dependent family member of deceased dealer and to ensure
continuity of public distribution system. Dependency and not
the marital status is the governing criteria of the G.O.
(iv) The descriptive categories of daughters in Clause 2(p) of 2016
Order whether unmarried, legally separated or widowed share
a common characteristic that is they remain or have returned
to their natal family. They are united by functional criteria of
dependency. A married daughter who has not departed from
the natal household and is dependent upon it, shares the same
functional characteristic.
(v) The submission that a married daughter necessarily fails to
satisfy the local residence requirement and therefore cannot
be a dependent, needs a factual inquiry to be made in every
case. A blanket exclusion of all married daughters on such a
speculative presumption is unjustified and is constitutionally
untenable.
(vi) To read the words “unmarried, legally separated and widowed
daughters” in Clause 2(p) of 2016 Order would produce a
result which is inconsistent with constitutional guarantees under
Articles 14 and 15(1) as the same would amount to exclusion
of a married daughter on a gender-based stereotype which is
constitutionally impermissible.
(vii) The exclusion of married daughter who is dependent upon the
deceased dealer and resides with the family and is a capable of
running the fair price shop would directly frustrate the purpose
of the provision.
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 37

Kulsum Nisha v. State of U.P. & Ors.

To sum up, the expression “daughter” in Clause 2(p) of 2016
Order, has to be read to include a married daughter provided she
establishes the dependency on the deceased dealer and satisfies
all other eligibility conditions prescribed under the G.O. including the
requirement of local residence.
26. For the foregoing reasons, on a purposive construction of Clause
2(p) of 2016 Order, we hold that the expression “daughters” used in
the aforesaid provision includes a married daughter who furnishes a
dependency certificate along with No Objection Certificates from other
adult family members of the deceased dealer and is a local resident
and satisfies all other eligibility conditions prescribed in the G.O. The
provision, so construed, would neither suffer from any invalidity nor
any constitutional infirmity. It is saved by the very meaning it bears
when understood in the light of its purpose.
27. We are in agreement with the view taken in Vimla Srivastava
(supra) by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court and the
decisions of the Bombay, Karnataka and Calcutta High Courts which
have recognised the principle that marital status cannot constitute
a valid ground for denying the benefit of a welfare measure to an
otherwise eligible daughter. To the extent the contrary view expressed
in Saida Begum and Smt. Kusumlata (supra), does not lay down
the correct law and stand overruled.

CONCLUSION
28. In the present case, the material on record establishes that the
appellant continued to reside in the same village even after her
marriage and actively assisted her mother in the operation of the
fair price shop. The appellant upon her mother’s demise, assumed
responsibility for maintaining her sisters, including a visually impaired
sister. The authorities have not disputed these factual assertions. The
sole ground on which her application was rejected was that she is
a married daughter. Once that ground is held to be constitutionally
invalid, no impediment survives to the grant of relief in her favour.
29. Consequently, the orders dated 05.03.2025, 07.01.2025 and
16.07.2024 passed by the High Court, Deputy Commissioner and
the SDM respectively are quashed and set aside. The competent
authority shall issue the necessary allotment order in favour of the
appellant within a period of four weeks.
38 [2026] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

30. Before parting with the matter, we place on record our appreciation
for the valuable assistance rendered by the learned Amicus, Ms.
Rukhmini Bobde.
31. The appeal is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Result of the case: Appeal allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain