Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court struck down a Sainik Welfare Board guideline that did not allow married daughters to avail dependent cards available to children of former defence personnel. Earlier, the right was only given to the sons.
On January 2, a single-judge bench of the HC ruled an order saying that if the son remains a son, married or unmarried, a daughter shall remain a daughter, married or unmarried. “If the act of marriage does not change the status of the son, the act of marriage cannot and shall not change the status of a daughter,” it added.
Justice M Nagaprasanna passed the order in response to a petition filed by the 31-year-old daughter of Army Subedar Ramesh Khandappa Police Patil, who died while clearing mines during the military mobilisation along the India-Pakistan border in 2001.
The petitioner, Priyanka Patil, approached the High Court in 2021 after the Sainik Welfare Board declined to issue a dependent card to her as she was married. She had sought the card as she wanted to avail of the state government’s 10% reservation for the relatives of ex-defence personnel during the recruitment of assistant professors in 2020.
The Sainik Welfare Board, while declining her application, had cited a rule that dependent cards could only be given to unmarried persons in cases involving women. However, the High Court allowed her petition on January 2.
Justice M Nagaprasanna has also asked the central government to consider a more gender-neutral term to refer to previous defence personnel, instead of calling them ‘ex-servicemen’. He also said that he holds the exclusion of a married daughter for grant of an I-card which is provided to the dependents of ex-servicemen in terms of guideline 5(c) violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. “I strike down and annihilate the words ‘till married’ in the aforesaid guideline,” he further said.
While hearing the plea, the HC stated that the Board’s rule violates constitutional rights which guarantee equality. According to the HC, the guideline was a “depiction of gender stereotypes that existed decades ago, and if permitted to remain would be an anachronistic obstacle in the march to women’s equality”.
