On January 2, a single judge bench of the Karnataka High Court led by Justice M Nagaprsanna struck down criteria in the Department of Sainik Welfare and Resettlement guidelines that held married daughters under the age of 25 ineligible for the issuance of dependent Identity cards. If issued, the identity card entitles them to apply for government jobs in the ex-servicemen category.

The court also stated that it granted the petition filed by Priyanka R Patil, the daughter of deceased Subedar Ramesh Khandappa Police Patil, who was killed in action, and struck down guideline 5(c), ruling that it violated Articles 14 and 15 of the Indian Constitution. The bench said “I strike down and annihilate the words “till married” in the aforesaid guideline.” Following which the court directed the respondents to issue I-card to the petitioner within two weeks, if all other parameters are found satisfactory.

The bench held that the clause in 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.”

After reviewing the contested guidelines, the bench noted that clause (5)(c) of the guidelines depicts the issuance of I-cards to the children of ex-servicemen. It would be issued for a period of five years and then renewed for another five years. The sons and daughters of ex-servicemen are divided here, according to the court. "The sons are issued the I-card subject to them not attaining the age of 25 years or on ceasing to be dependent whichever is earlier or remains unemployed due to lifetime disability. These are not the conditions for the daughter.”

It then observed “Whatever is applicable to the son is applicable to the daughter as well, but till she gets married or is unemployed due to lifetime disability. What can be gathered from the aforesaid clauses of the guideline is, the son the moment he attains the age of 25 years or on ceasing to become a dependant as defined under the guideline, he would lose the benefit of getting an I-card. To the daughter, it is till she gets married.” It added “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.”

The bench opined “The word ‘men’ in the title, a part of the word ex-servicemen, would seek to demonstrate a misogynous posture of an age-old masculine culture. Therefore, the title wherever reads as ex-servicemen in the annals of policy making of the Government, be it the Union or the State concerned, should be made “Gender neutral”.”

Further it said “There has to be a change in the mindset of the rule making authority or the policy makers, it is only then there could be recognition of commitment of the values of the Constitution, as equality should not remain a mere idle incantation, but has to be a vibrant living reality. It must be remembered that extension of women’s rights is the basic principle of all social progress.”
Following which it suggested “Since it is in the realm of rule making or a policy making which is the domain of the Union Government or the State Government as the case would be, it is for the Union Government or the State Government to address this imperative need of change of nomenclature wherever it depicts to be ‘ex-servicemen’ to that of ‘ex-service personnel’ which would be in tune with ever evolving, dynamic tenets, of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”

Case Title: Priyanaka R Patil v. Kendriya Sainik Board
Citation: WRIT PETITION No.19722 OF 2021