Himachal HC quashes policy discriminating against married daughters of freedom fighters

SHIMLA: The Himachal Pradesh High Court has struck down a 1984 policy of the state that discriminated against the married daughters of freedom fighters.

The policy did not consider the married daughters on par with the married sons and specifically excluded them from reservation being provided to the wards of freedom fighters’ category in government jobs in Himachal.

The judgment was passed by a division bench comprising acting chief justice Sanjay Karol and justice Sandeep Sharma on a letter written to the chief justice by two sisters, Rekha Sharma and Geeta Sharma, who are the daughters of a freedom fighter from Sundernagar.

The high court took it up as a public interest litigation (PIL).

It was decided by the state in 1984 that 2% reservation in services would be provided to the children/grandchildren of freedom fighters.

Under the scheme, the benefits were applicable to sons/ grandsons/granddaughters and unmarried daughters of freedom fighters.

However, the married daughters of the freedom fighters were excluded from the scheme.

In the court, government contended that after marriage, daughters only serve the relations with their parents for they get ‘transplanted’ into the family of their husbands and, as such, cannot claim themselves to be part of the family of a freedom fighter.

Petitioners argued that exclusion of a married daughter was an act of hostile discrimination which was violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.

Delivering the judgment, the high court said, “We find the stand adopted by the state to be absolutely archaic and disappointing.”

“In our considered view, daughters and granddaughters, even if married, should be eligible for jobs. The action of the respondents by not giving reservation to married women and not giving them ‘wards of freedom fighter’ certificate, is illegal and arbitrary and an example of colourable exercise of power, for marriage does not have and should not have a proximate nexus with identity.

The identity of a woman, as a woman, continues to subsist even after her marital relationships,” the bench observed.

THE JUDGMENT WAS PASSED BY A DIVISION BENCH ON A LETTER WRITTEN TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE BY TWO DAUGHTERS OF A FREEDOM FIGHTER