Summary
Excluding married daughters from the definition of 'family' used for allotting a fair price shop under the dependent quota after a dealer's death rests solely on marital status and gender stereotype, and so violates Articles 14 and 15(1). On a purposive reading, 'daughters' in Clause 2(p) of the U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016 includes a dependent married daughter who meets the other conditions. The appellant was directed to be allotted the shop.
Issues
- Whether excluding a married daughter from the definition of 'family' in Clause 2(p) of the 2016 Order, as adopted by Paragraph IV(10) of the U.P. Government Order of 05.08.2019, for allotment of a fair price shop under the dependent quota is constitutionally sustainable.
- Whether the words 'unmarried, legally separated and widowed daughters' should be struck down or read purposively to include married daughters.
- Whether the appellant, a married daughter who lived with and supported her deceased mother's family, was entitled to the allotment.
Provisions considered
- Clause 2(p), Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016The definition of 'family', which lists 'unmarried, legally separated, and widowed daughters', was read purposively as illustrative and not exhaustive, so that 'daughters' includes a married daughter who proves dependency and satisfies the other eligibility conditions. (¶¶ 11, 16, 24, 25, 26)
- Paragraphs IV(5), IV(10) and V, U.P. Government Order No. 6 of 2019 dated 05.08.2019Paragraph V governs allotment under the dependent quota and adopts the definition of 'family' in Paragraph IV(10). The exclusion of married daughters there was held arbitrary, and local residence under Paragraph IV(5) was held to be a separate condition to be decided on the facts of each case. (¶¶ 12, 13, 21, 23)
- Articles 14 and 15(1), Constitution of IndiaApplying the reasonable classification test and the bar on arbitrary or stereotype-based State action, the Court held that excluding married daughters while including married sons has no rational nexus with the scheme's object of relieving dependants. (¶¶ 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23)
- Article 39(a) and (c), Constitution of IndiaRelied on to read the equality guarantees in light of the State's duty to secure for men and women equally an adequate means of livelihood and to prevent concentration of wealth. (¶ 14)
- Section 3, Essential Commodities Act, 1955Noted as the source of the 2016 Order; the Court observed that the Act and the Order aim at equitable distribution through the public distribution system, in which fair price shop dealers perform a public function. (¶¶ 3, 15)
Held
- Allotment under the dependent quota is meant to give immediate relief to the family of a deceased dealer and to keep the public distribution system running; it creates no right of succession or inheritance. The relevant considerations are dependency, financial need, residence and ability to run the shop, and marital status has no rational nexus with any of them. (¶¶ 15, 18, 22)
- Excluding married daughters while keeping married sons within the 'family' rests on the stereotype that a daughter leaves her natal family on marriage. Dependency is a question of fact that cannot be decided by marital status alone, so the exclusion fails the reasonable classification test, is manifestly arbitrary and violates Articles 14 and 15(1). (¶¶ 17, 19, 20, 23)
- The State's argument that a married daughter cannot meet the local residence requirement fails: residence is a separate eligibility criterion to be decided on the facts of each case and cannot justify a blanket exclusion. (¶¶ 21, 25)
- Where a literal reading produces a result inconsistent with constitutional guarantees and the language can bear more than one meaning, the Court must prefer the construction that serves the provision's purpose. The enumerated categories of daughters in Clause 2(p) are illustrative, contain no words of exclusion, and share the common feature of dependency on the natal family. (¶¶ 24, 25)
- On a purposive construction, 'daughters' in Clause 2(p) of the 2016 Order includes a married daughter who furnishes a dependency certificate and no-objection certificates from other adult family members, is a local resident and meets the other conditions of the G.O.; so construed, the provision is valid. Contrary Allahabad High Court decisions in Saida Begum and Smt. Kusumlata were overruled. (¶¶ 25, 26, 27)
- As the appellant lived in the same village after marriage, helped run the shop and supported her sisters, and these facts were undisputed, the only ground of rejection (her marital status) failed and nothing stood in the way of relief. (¶ 28)
Result
Appeal allowed; the orders of the High Court, Deputy Commissioner and SDM were set aside, and the competent authority was directed to issue the allotment order in the appellant's favour within four weeks; no order as to costs.