Latest JudgementConstitution of India

Sayara Khatoon @ Shajara Khatoon & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Ors., 2026

The judgment strengthens the constitutional mandate of equality under Article 14 by striking down gender-based exclusion.

Supreme Court of India·31 July 2026

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date of Decision

31 July 2026

Judges

Justice M.M. Sundresh & Justice Prasanna B. Varale

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Article 14 of the Constitution of India Article 15 of the Constitution of India

Facts of the Case

The appellant’s father, a Government employee, died while in service in the State of Bihar.
The appellant applied for compassionate appointment under the State policy.
The application was rejected on two grounds:
- An alleged objection raised by the appellant’s maternal uncle
- The 2014 policy restriction, which limited eligibility of married daughters only to those who were divorced or deserted
The appellant contended that the maternal uncle had already issued a No Objection Certificate (NOC), removing any objection.
She further stated that although her marriage was not legally dissolved, she was living with her parental family and was supported by them.
The Patna High Court upheld the rejection of her claim.
The appellant challenged the High Court’s decision before the Supreme Court of India.

Whether restricting compassionate appointment only to divorced or deserted married daughters while excluding other married daughters violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India?
Whether a married daughter can be presumed in law to have severed all ties with her parental family after marriage?
Whether the State can reject a claim for compassionate appointment by adopting a hyper-technical interpretation of the policy?
Whether the appellant’s claim for compassionate appointment requires reconsideration on merits?

The Supreme Court held that the policy restricting eligibility only to divorced or deserted daughters is unconstitutional.
The classification was found to be violative of Article 14.
The Court reaffirmed that any discrimination between a son and a daughter is constitutionally impermissible.
It rejected the State’s argument that a married daughter is presumed to leave her parental home after marriage.
The Court held that there is no legal presumption that marriage severs a daughter’s relationship with her natal family.
It observed that such assumptions are based on gender stereotypes, which are incompatible with constitutional values.
The Court held that a hyper-technical approach cannot justify denial of compassionate appointment.
The objection raised by the maternal uncle was found to have ceased after issuance of the NOC.
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Patna High Court and the rejection order.

Restricting compassionate appointment only to divorced or deserted daughters is unconstitutional.
Married daughters cannot be excluded solely on the basis of marital status.
There is no presumption that a daughter loses her connection with her parental family after marriage.

It reinforces that classification based solely on marital status is arbitrary and unconstitutional.
The Court rejected entrenched patriarchal assumptions regarding a daughter’s identity after marriage.
It recognised the evolving social reality where daughters continue to maintain strong ties with their natal families.
The ruling aligns with the principle of substantive equality, ensuring equal treatment of women in public employment.
The Court emphasised that welfare schemes like compassionate appointment must be interpreted in line with constitutional morality.
It discouraged reliance on hyper-technical interpretations that defeat the purpose of social welfare policies.
The decision is likely to influence similar policies across States, ensuring non-discriminatory eligibility criteria.
The judgment marks a significant step toward eliminating gender stereotypes in administrative decision-making.