Legal Analysis: Kulsum Nisha V. State of U.P. & Ors

Citation: 2026 INSC 617

Court: Supreme Court of India (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)

Bench: A Division Bench comprising Justice Alok Aradhe & Justice Jamidighantam Sri Narasimha

Date of Decision: June 02, 2026

Nature of Judgment: Civil Appeal No. 7667 of 2025 arising out of the order dated 05.03.2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench.

Synopsis of the Judgment

The appellant, a married daughter of a deceased fair price shop dealer, sought allotment of the shop on compassionate grounds under the dependent quota. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate rejected her application solely on the ground that she was a married daughter and thus excluded from the definition of "family" under Paragraph IV(10) of Government Order No. 6 of 2019, which defined family to include only "unmarried, legally separated, and widowed daughters." The Allahabad High Court dismissed her writ petition, bound by its Division Bench decisions in Smt. Kusumlata and Saida Begum, but granted a certificate under Article 134-A of the Constitution, holding that the matter involved a substantial question of law of general importance. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the exclusion of married daughters from the definition of "family" fails the test of reasonable classification under Article 14 and violates Article 15(1) as it is founded on gender-based stereotypes. The Court, applying purposive construction, read the expression "daughters" in Clause 2(p) of the Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016 to include married daughters who establish dependency on the deceased dealer, are local residents, and satisfy all other eligibility conditions.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

Case Title: Kulsum Nisha v. State of U.P. & Ors.

Citation: 2026 INSC 617

Civil Appeal No.: 7667 of 2025

Bench: Division Bench (Justice Alok Aradhe & Justice Jamidighantam Sri Narasimha)

Date of Decision: June 02, 2026

Court: Supreme Court of India (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)

Impugned Order: Judgment and order dated 05.03.2025 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.

2. Legal Framework

Major Laws and Provisions Involved

• Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 14 (equality before law), Article 15(1) (prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sex), Article 19(1)(g) (right to practice any profession), Article 21 (right to life with dignity), Article 39(a) and (c) (Directive Principles – equal right to means of livelihood and prevention of concentration of wealth).

• Essential Commodities Act, 1955 – Section 3 (power to control production, supply, distribution, etc., of essential commodities).

• Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016 (2016 Order) – Clause 2(p) (definition of "family"), Clause 7 (appointment and regulation of fair price shop), Clause 7(2) (empowerment of State Government to prescribe eligibility conditions).

• Government Order No. 6 of 2019 (G.O.) – Paragraph IV (essential qualifications and conditions for selection in rural areas), Sub-Paragraph 10 (definition of "family" excluding married daughter), Paragraph V (procedure for allotment under dependent quota after death of dealer).

Key Precedents Cited and Applied

• State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952) SCR 284 (Seven Judge Bench) – Laid down the two-fold test for reasonable classification under Article 14: intelligible differentia and rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved.

• E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) 4 SCC 3 – Established that Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness; state action that is arbitrary, irrational, or founded on impermissible stereotypes is vulnerable under Article 14.

• Air India v. Nergesh Meerza (1981) 4 SCC 335 – Held that discriminatory service conditions based on gender and marital status violate constitutional guarantees.

• Vimla Srivastava v. State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court) – Recognised that marital status cannot constitute a valid ground for denying welfare benef

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.