The Karnataka High Court ruled that a married daughter remains a daughter in the same way that a married son remains a son, upholding a Sainik Welfare Board regulation that barred married daughters from acquiring dependent cards provided to the offspring of former defence personnel. If a son remains a son whether or not he is married, a daughter also remains a daughter whether or not she is married. The act of marriage “cannot and must not impact the status of a daughter if the act of marriage does not modify the status of the son,” a single judge bench of the Karnataka High Court ruled in a judgement on January 2.
Karnataka High Court overturns Sanik Welfare Boards Guidelines
The HC has also asked the Central Government to stop referring to former members of the armed forces as “ex-servicemen” and instead consider using the gender-neutral phrase “ex-service personnel” in view of the changing gender dynamics within the armed forces. After hearing a petition from the 31-year-old daughter of Subedar Ramesh Khandappa Police Patil, a former soldier who died in 2001 while clearing mines as part of “Operation Parakram,” Justice M. Nagaprasanna of the Karnataka High Court issued the orders. Priyanka Patil, who was 10 years old when the former Madras Engineer Group (MEG) Subedar passed away, complained to the Karnataka High Court in 2021 after the Sainik Welfare Board refused to provide her a dependant card since she was married.
Also Read: Karnataka High Court pronounces its judgment in hijab case
Karnataka High Court asks Central Government to follow Gender Neutral Nomenclature
Due to the shifting gender dynamics within the armed services, the Karnataka High Court has asked the Central Government to stop referring to former defence personnel as ex-servicemen and instead to take into account the gender neutral nomenclature of ex-service personnel
Priyanka Patil will apply to be recognised as the daughter of former defence personnel in order to benefit from the 10% state reservation created for the relatives of ex-service personnel when the Karnataka government hires assistant professors for government degree colleges in the state in 2020. She was denied the card since, according to Sainik Welfare regulations, only unmarried people can receive dependent cards in the case of women. After considering the stances taken by constitutional courts in cases where discrimination was alleged against married daughters for compassionate appointments, kerosene licences, and other privileges, the Karnataka High Court determined that discrimination on the basis of gender is “violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India,” which guarantees equality.
Karnataka High Court say Gender discrimination is in violation of Article 14
According to the Karnataka High Court, discrimination based on gender is “in violation of Article 14” of the Indian Constitution, “which guarantees equality.”
“The primary reason why the assistance programmes were established for the benefit of the relatives of deceased ex-servicemen is removed because the petitioner is the daughter and the daughter is married. The Karnataka HC concluded that even if the ex-servicemen had sons, marriage would not have mattered.” The directive therefore contravenes the Indian Constitution’s Article 14 provisions. According to Justice M. Nagaprasanna, the policy reflects gender stereotypes from many years ago and would be an outmoded impediment to women’s equality if it were to be upheld. The Karnataka High Court ruled that the suggestions would violate the fundamental provisions of Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Indian Constitution.
Justice Nagaprasanna rules Sainik Board Guidelines 5(c) to remove phrase until married
Justice Nagaprasanna ruled that the Sainik Board Guidelines 5(c) for the issuing of I-cards to dependents of ex-servicemen violated Articles 14 and 15 of the Indian Constitution and removed the phrase “until married” from the aforementioned guideline
Any law, regulation, or order that violates the equality principle “cannot but be eliminated, as being unconstitutional,” the court ruled. The words “until married” in the aforementioned guideline are therefore struck down and eliminated, Justice Nagaprasanna said. According to guideline 5(c) of the rules for issuing I-cards to dependents of ex-servicemen, “I hold that exclusion of married daughter for issue of an I-card in terms of guideline 5(c) is violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India.” According to a job announcement made on August 26, 2021, the High Court has directed the Karnataka Examination Authority to consider Priyanka Patil’s application for the position of Assistant Professor under the ex-quota servicemen’s.
Karnataka High Court orders to accept Priyanka Patil’s application
The HC has also given instructions to the Central Government to adopt cultural trends and use gender-neutral language for its many programmes and projects. “The terminology used in the standards aims to show prejudice. The terminology uses the word “ex-servicemen.” The HC has stated that the use of the word “men” in the title exemplifies this discrimination because it implies that men can still dominate in the military, which is false. “No Force allowed women to serve in combat positions at one point in time. There has been a paradigm shift from the past. Women have ascended to officer-level leadership roles in the Indian Army, Indian Air Force, and Indian Navy, among other tasks. The HC made clear that this was public information.
The Karnataka High Court states word “men” in nomenclature implies prejudice
The court pointed out that the term “men,” which is a component of the word “ex-servicemen,” would strive to convey a misogynous posture of an antiquated macho culture. The Karnataka High Court declared that the title should be changed to be “gender neutral” whenever it refers to ex-servicemen in the policy-making records of the government, whether the Union or the State concerned.
The court stated that in order for a dedication to the ideals of the Constitution to be recognised, “there needs to be a shift in the thinking of the rule-making authority or the policy-makers, as equality should not remain a simple idle incantation, but has to be a lively living reality.”
Also Read: Karnataka High Court’s decision to ban Hijab challenged in Supreme Court
For all the news updates subscribe to our YouTube channel ‘DNP India’. You can also follow us on FACEBOOK, INSTAGRAM, and TWITTER.
