Details of the Case

1.

2.

3.

Brief Overview

The Karnataka High Court has overturned criteria in the Department of Sainik Welfare and
Resettlement rules that made married daughters under the age of 25 ineligible for the issuance
of dependant Identity cards. If issued, the identity card entitles individuals to apply for
government positions in the ex-servicemen category.

A single-judge bench led by Justice M Nagaprasanna granted the plea filed by Priyanka R
Patil, the daughter of late Subedar Ramesh Khand Police Patil, who was killed in action and
overturned guideline 5(c), ruling it to be in violation of Articles 14 and 15 of the Indian
Constitution. The bench ruled that the guideline, “Is a depiction of gender stereotypes which
were existent decades ago, and if permitted to remain would be an anachronistic obstacle in
the march towards women’s equality.”

Issues Framed

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The petitioner, the second daughter of Subedar Ramesh Khandappa Police Patil,
graduated in 2015 and became eligible to be considered for appointment in the State
Government in any subsequent recruitment procedure.

*According to various similar benefit initiatives introduced by the state government for ex-
servicemen, their wards were entitled to 10% reservation in any recruiting procedure across
all government ministries.

*On August 26, 2021, a notification was released in order to the vacant positions of Assistant
Professors in the State's Government First Grade colleges.

*The petitioner, who was the ward of an ex-serviceman and found herself eligible in all other
relevant requirements, approached the Deputy Director of Zilla Sainik Welfare Board for the
issuance of a dependant identity card to indicate that the petitioner was indeed the ward of an
ex-serviceman.

*However, the deputy director declined to grant an identity card, citing criteria for dependent
identity card issuance, which state that identity cards cannot be issued to married daughters.

ARGUMENTS BY PETITIONER COUNSEL

The learned counsel of petitioner was emphasized that according to the guidelines, issued by
the Government of Karnataka, allowed both son and daughter of an ex-servicemen for
issuance of dependent card but in case of daughter it is issued only till she gets married. This
is totally the violation of the Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, according to the learned
counsel. It was also submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner, even though she has
married, would have been eligible for the issuance of dependent card

ARGUMENTS BY RESPONDENT COUNSEL

The learned counsel of respondent by denying the submissions of petitioner counsel, argued
that the moment the daughter gets married she will no longer qualifies as an dependant of ex-
serviceman. The learned counsel of respondent submitted that the guidelines have set up the
age limit of 25 years for both son and daughter without any discrimination. If any son or
daughter of ex-serviceman crosses the age limit of 25 years then he or she can not be eligible
for issuance of card. The respondent counsel argued that there is no disparity happening
between the sons or daughters once they reach or crosses the age limit of 25. It was also
submitted by the counsel that the family of deceased has already been the beneficiary of ex-
gratia of Rs.2 lakhs, free site as the ex-service man was martyred, daughters grant of
Rs.40,000/- each and allotment of a petrol bunk at Mysore. Then it was contended by the
learned counsel of respondent that after getting all these benefit of the scheme by the family
of ex-serviceman, it should not be entitled for the card. The counsel seek dismissal of the
petition.

OBSERVATION OF THE COURT

"The rule after the age of 25 years is uniform for both son and daughter. The daughter, who is
under the age of 25, marries and loses the privilege of being a ward of an ex-serviceman for
the purpose of obtaining an I-card... The son is eligible whether he is married or unmarried;
the daughter is eligible only if she is unmarried. The guideline depicts bias on the basis of
gender; inequality on the basis of gender, as marriage of a daughter takes away her right to
receive an I-card, but marriage of a son does not take away his right to get an I-card. If a son
remains a son, married or single, a daughter shall remain a daughter, married or unmarried,
according to this court. If marriage does not change the status of a son, it cannot and shall not
change the status of a daughter”, according to the court.

"Women have reached combatant services in supervisory capacities as officers and other
responsibilities, whether in the Indian Army, Air Force, or Navy," the court stated. As a
result, the word 'men' in the title, which is a part of the word ex-servicemen, would seek to
demonstrate a misogynistic posture of an age-old masculine culture…There must be a change
in the mindset of the rule-making authority or policymakers; only then could there be
recognition of the commitment to the values of the Constitution..." The high court stated that
it is up to the Union government or state governments to address the critical need for a
change in terminology wherever it displays 'ex-servicemen' to 'ex-service persons'.

JUDGMENT

After hearing the government's arguments, Judge Nagaprasanna issued his decision. "A
woman is a daughter to a father like a son, despite the marriage," he noted in his decision.
That remains unchanged. It cannot be stated that an ex-serviceman’s daughter cannot obtain
an identity card because she is a woman. He directed that such rules be amended.

ANALYSIS

The decision of the court is appreciable because Article 14 of Indian Constitution “The State
shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws
within the territory of India Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste,
sex or place of birth”. Article 16 of Constitution of India. In accordance with Article 14's
general rule of equality, Article 16 is applicable, with particular emphasis on opportunities
for appointment and employment by the State. Article 15(1) “prohibits discrimination on the
ground of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.” The Indian Constitution's Articles 14,
15, and 16 serve as a warning against both the legislative and executive branches of the
government.

In case of C.B. Muthamma v. Union of India (1979) 4 SCC 260 Supreme Court decided that
“At the first blush this rule is in defiance of Article 16. If a married man has a right, a
married woman, other things being equal, stands on no worse footing.”
So, the court decision of the court is completely agreed with the Constitutional provisions.
These kinds of judgements would encourage the women empowerment and their rights in the
society.