Date of judgement:
02.01.2023
Bench:
Honourable Justice M. Nagaprasanna
Parties:
Petitioner – PRIYANKA R. PATIL
Respondent – KENDRIYA SAINIK BOARD
SUBJECT
The High Court, in this case, determined whether the guidelines issued by the state which differentiated between married and unmarried daughters was violative of Article 14 or not.
FACTS
- The father of the petitioner was a serviceman killed in action. The father of the petitioner was survived by the petitioner's mother and two daughters.
- The Government of Karnataka had introduced a scheme that provided for 10% reservation in the favour of the wards of ex-servicemen.
- However, the petitioner was unable to claim the benefit of the scheme as the scheme provided that the identity cards were not to be issued to married daughters.
- The petitioner challenged the guidelines before the High Court.
ARGUMENTS
- The petitioner contended that the concerned guidelines were violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
- The respondents, on the other hand, contended that once the daughter is married, she cannot be identified as the dependent of the ex-serviceman.
- The respondents further stated that the guidelines provided a cap of 25 years for both male and female wards and once the wards attained the age of 25 years, they could not claim the benefit under the scheme.
ISSUE
- Whether the guidelines were violative of Article 14 of the Constitution?
ANALYSIS
- The Court noted that as per the guidelines, the daughter would lose the benefit of the scheme when she gets married.
- The son ceases to get the benefit once he attains the age of 25 years or once he ceases to be a dependent or if he remains unemployed and suffers from lifetime disability.
- The Court referred to Article 14 which prohibits the State from discriminating against the citizens on the basis of gender.
- The Court held that the legislature cannot make any law, rule or guidelines which violate Article 14.
- The Court held that a guideline in the form of a policy is on a lower pedestal than a statute. Since even a statute is declared void if it is violative of Article 14, the guideline in the form of policy would fall if it violates Article 14 even in the remotest sense.
CONCLUSION
The Court held that since marriage did not change the status of the son under the scheme, then the same could affect the status of the daughter. The Court thus held that the guidelines, being discriminatory, were violative of Articles 14, 15 and 16. The Court further observed that the government should change the nomenclature ‘ex-servicemen’ to ‘ex-service personnel’.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
