Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The judgment of this Court in the case of Isha Tyagi (supra) clarifies the position that there is hostile gender discrimination when married daughter and her children have been disqualified from receiving the benefit of reservation. In this backdrop arguments advanced by U.P. Public Service Commission that it is a case of prospective ruling and further the amendment in question would be enforceable from the date it has been brought in the statute book cannot be accepted as gender discrimination has been there since the inception of said provision and this Court has proceeded to clarify the legal position vide order dated 26.8.2014 clearly mentioning therein the benefits of horizontal reservation of 2% for descendants of freedom fighters shall extend both to descendants of a freedom fighter tracing their lineage through a son or through a daughter irrespective of the marital status of the daughter. Neither a married daughter nor her children would be disqualified from receiving the benefit of the reservation which is otherwise available to them in their capacity as descendants of a freedom fighter. In the said case the process of counselling was on, this Court directed consideration of candidature of the said candidate under the category of horizontal reservation of 2% provided for descendants of freedom fighters as discrimination has to be remedied and not to be perpetuated. The judgment of this Court in the case of Isha Tyagi (supra) has to be accepted as of declaratory nature and it has to be accepted that right from the inception when policy decision has been taken to grant horizontal reservation of 2% to the descendants of freedom fighters, gender discrimination persisted whereas marital status of daughter ought not to have made any difference. The said judgment in question declares the correct law and once the judgment in question nowhere proceeds to mention that it would be applied prospectively then it has to be accepted that the judgment in question clarifies the legal position and is declaratory in nature. The amending act in question i.e. U.P. Act No. 6 of 2015 cannot be accepted as prospective in nature, inasmuch as, in the facts of the case, it has to be held to be correction of an obvious drafting error based on gender discrimination. The said amending act brings the granddaughter (daughter of a son) (married or unmarried) within the fold of descendant of freedom fighter. The said amending act is not at all prospective in nature as even without amending such provision, this Court has already clarified the legal position and the said provision would have to be read and interpreted, as has been sought to be corrected by the amendment. The judgment in the case of Isha Tyagi (supra) has to be accepted as declaratory and amendment in question is nothing but clarificatory in nature, that clarifies the situation as it ought to have been right from the inception of provision.