Islamabad:

The Supreme Court has decided that a married woman remains a equal child of her deceased parent as their other children, and to deny her right on the basis of her marriage means refusing her constitutional identity as a equal citizen.

The Supreme Court’s righteousness sewed Mansoor Ali Shah said that any presumption that a married woman becomes financially dependent on her husband is not only legally unsustainable, but also religiously unfounded and contrary to the egalitarian spirit of Islamic law.

A division bench of the pointed right, led by Justice Shah, reigned after the petition from a female schoolteacher, Zahida Parveen. Justice Shah Author a nine-page judgment that directed the respondent department to restore her appointment with all back benefits.

Secret Zahida Parveen was appointed elementary school teacher under the deceased son/daughter’s quota on March 17, 2023. However, the District Education Officer (female) withdrew the Karak with the agreement without issuing a message of show year.

The service’s service was terminated due to a “clarification” which determined that the benefit of appointment under the deceased son/daughter’s quota was not available to a woman who had been marriage.

“The exclusion of married daughters from compassionate appointment […] is declared to be discriminatory, Ultra Vires, issued without legal authority and incompatible with Pakistan’s constitutional guarantees and international legal obligations, ”the court gave.

“The respondent department is referred to restore the appointment’s appointment with all back-benefits,” it said. “As constitutional issues, women are entitled to equality not only in the result, but also in form, tone and respect that the law addresses them with.”

The bench noted that all judicial and administrative authorities had a constitutional responsibility for adopting gender -sensitive and gender -neutral languages. “The judiciary must lead an example and ensure that the words used to interpret and apply the law do not even become instruments for exclusion.”

The judgment declared: “This is not a pure formality, but reflects a material obligation to the values ​​of dignity, equality and autonomy guaranteed to all citizens under Articles 14, 25 and 27 of the Constitution.”

It said women were autonomous and rights -bearing citizens in their own right and not by virtue of their relationship with a man, be it father, husband or son. It added that economic independence was not a privilege, but a necessary prerequisite for the full realization of citizenship, autonomy and personality.

“A married daughter just remains a child of her deceased parent, and to deny her this right on the basis of marriage is to deny her constitutional identity as an equal citizen. It mentions that the principle of a woman’s economic independence is not only based on the constitutional text, but is also firmly embedded in the Islamic legal tradition,” the verdict said.

“Under Islamic case law, a woman retains full ownership and control of her property, earnings and financial affairs, regardless of her marital status. Therefore, any presumption that a married woman becomes financially dependent on her husband, not only legally unsustainable, but also religiously unfounded and contrary to the egalitarian spirit of Islamic law,” the judgment continued.

“This arbitrary classification is thus not only unreasonable, but clearly constitutional, the insult guarantees of equality (Article 25), non-discrimination in public service (Article 27) and the right to dignity (Article 14).

Consequently, the verdict said, the intended clarification and the letter dated on April 28, 2023, was responsible for being beaten to be ultra vires, discriminatory and constitutionally contradictory, adding that when the basic order was without legal authority, the entire superstructure on to the ground fell automatically.

The court declared that exclusion of married daughters from the framework of rule 10 (2).

According to the verdict, it was assumed that a woman, after marriage, gave up her independent legal identity and became financially dependent on her husband and thereby lost rights available to similarly male colleagues.

“At its core, this exclusion constitutes a denial of a woman’s right to financial and economic independence – rights that are not affiliated but important for the exercise of constitutional personality. The constitution guarantees rights to individuals, not to marital entities or prescribed social roles,” it said.

The order also said that the reason for the intended clarification represents a constitutionally unacceptable resuscitation of the discredited common law doctrine of hidden, under which a woman’s legal existence was subject to her husband.

“Modern constitutional case law has certainly rejected such notions and confirmation that marriage does not turn off a woman’s legal personality or limit her rights under the law. Any policy or executive clarification seeking to reintroduce this logic under the pretext of marital dependence, violates the central constitutional guarantees of dignity, equality and non-signing,” the court said.

The verdict warned that except married daughters from compassionate appointment under Rule 10 (2).

Articles 2 and 11 of Cedaw explicitly banished discrimination in employment on the basis of gender and marital status, noted the verdict, adding that the CEDAW committee had repeatedly emphasized this laws and administrative practice that is rooted in cultural stereotypes or usual norms that were incompatible with the state’s duty to secure substantive sexual equality.

The court also expressed concern about the language used in the intended judgment, especially the phrase “a married daughter becomes a responsibility to her husband”, saying that such a language was not only actual and legally wrong, but also deeply patriarchal, which reinforces obsolete stereotypes that were fundamentally incompatible with constitutional values.

“The use of gender -fagged language from judicial or administrative bodies not only reflects prevailing social prejudices, it immorts and legitimizes structural discrimination and risks code bias in the law itself,” the verdict warned. “As constitutional issues, women are entitled to equality not only in the result, but also in form, tone and respect that the law addresses them with.”

In this context, the verdict said, the feminist judgment project, which was implemented in several jurisdictions, including Pakistan, had shown how judicial reasoning could be reformulated through a feminist lens that used existing legal principles, while avoiding gender-related assumptions and introduced inclusive inclusive, equality.

“The core assumption is clear: How the law is written questions as much as it decides.”