In a landmark ruling promoting gender equality and reaffirming women's legal rights, the Supreme Court of Pakistan has overturned a judgment by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal, Peshawar. The tribunal had previously ruled that a "married daughter becomes a liability of her husband" and, therefore, was ineligible for compassionate appointment under the deceased son/daughter quota. The Supreme Court firmly rejected this reasoning, deeming it not only factually and legally incorrect but also "deeply patriarchal" for reinforcing outdated stereotypes.

The Court referenced the Supreme Court of India's judgment in Aparna Bhat v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021), which emphasizes the need for judicial language to avoid reinforcing gender biases. A division bench of Justices Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Athar Minallah observed:

"Such language is not only factually and legally erroneous, but also deeply patriarchal, reinforcing outdated stereotypes that are fundamentally incompatible with constitutional values. It assumes that a woman's identity, legal capacity, personhood, and entitlement to support are subsumed into that of her husband upon marriage, treating her as a dependent rather than an autonomous, rights-bearing individual."

Read also:- Supreme Court Orders Probe Into Alleged Irregularities In Punjab Municipal Elections

The ruling further stressed that gender-biased language in judicial and administrative decisions perpetuates structural discrimination and embeds bias within legal frameworks. The judges reiterated that judicial reasoning plays a critical role in shaping societal norms and must uphold the principles of equality and dignity.

The Supreme Court asserted that all judicial and administrative bodies have a constitutional duty to adopt gender-sensitive and gender-neutral language. This is not merely a procedural requirement but a substantive commitment to the values of dignity, equality, and autonomy as guaranteed under Articles 14, 25, and 27 of the Constitution of Pakistan.

The ruling stated:

"Women are entitled to equality not only in results but also in the form, tone, and respect with which the law addresses them. The judiciary must lead by example, ensuring that the words used to interpret and apply the law do not themselves become instruments of exclusion."

The Supreme Court struck down an executive clarification that had excluded married daughters from compassionate appointments under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion, and Transfer) Rules, 1989, calling it

"discriminatory, ultra vires, issued without lawful authority, and incompatible with Pakistan's constitutional guarantees and international legal obligations."

Read Also:- Karnataka HC Rules That Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Decide Third-Party Rights in Arbitration Matters

The Court found that the original rule was gender-neutral and inclusive. However, the executive clarification introduced an arbitrary distinction by allowing married sons but excluding married daughters from eligibility. This classification, the Court held, violated the principle of reasonable classification under Article 25 of the Constitution, as there was no intelligible differentia justifying such exclusion.

"A plain reading of the provision indicates that a married daughter falls within the scope of 'one of the children' and cannot be excluded solely on the basis of her marital status."

"No rational basis exists for differentiating between a married son and a married daughter in providing compassionate economic relief to a deceased civil servant’s bereaved family. This classification is not only unreasonable but plainly unconstitutional."

Read Also:- Legal Awareness and Right to Respond to Police Inquiry Not Anti-National: Bombay High Court

Women’s Legal Rights Are Not Contingent on Marriage

In reinforcing women's rights, the Court cited feminist legal scholar Martha Fineman:

"A woman's legal rights, her personhood, and her autonomy are not erased by marriage, nor should they be contingent upon it."

This statement underscores the principle that a woman’s legal and economic independence is fundamental to her constitutional identity and should not be dictated by marital status.

The Case of Zahida Parveen

The case originated from a petition filed by Zahida Parveen, who was appointed as a primary school teacher under the deceased son/daughter quota, as per Rule 10(4) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion, and Transfer) Rules, 1989. However, her appointment was revoked based on an executive clarification that denied such appointments to married women. An additional clarification stated that a married daughter could only be considered if she was separated from her husband and financially dependent on her parents.

After the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal dismissed her plea, Parveen approached the Supreme Court, which ruled in her favor, declaring the executive clarification unconstitutional.

Read Also:- Supreme Court Acquits Man in 30-Year-Old Murder Case: Examining the Role of Prior Enmity in Criminal Trials

Patriarchal Assumptions and Economic Disempowerment

The Supreme Court also emphasized that the exclusion of married daughters reflected a "deeper structural flaw grounded in patriarchal assumptions" about women's roles in society. The judgment stated:

"It presumes that upon marriage, a woman relinquishes her independent legal identity and becomes economically dependent on her husband, thereby forfeiting entitlements available to similarly situated male counterparts. At its core, this exclusion constitutes a denial of a woman’s right to financial and economic independence—rights that are not ancillary but essential to the exercise of constitutional personhood."

The Court further highlighted that financial independence is not a privilege but a necessary precondition for full citizenship, autonomy, and personhood. It asserted that a married daughter remains equally a child of her deceased parent, and denying her rights based on marriage is unconstitutional.

Read Also:- NCLAT Upholds CCI's Ruling Against Google, Reduces Penalty to Rs 216 Crore

Islamic Jurisprudence Supports Financial Independence for Women

Additionally, the Court referenced Islamic legal traditions, emphasizing that under Islamic law, a woman retains full ownership of her property, earnings, and financial affairs regardless of marital status.

"Any presumption that a married woman becomes financially dependent on her husband is not only legally untenable but also religiously unfounded and contrary to the egalitarian spirit of Islamic law."