EDITORIAL: The verdict delivered by a two-member Supreme Court bench in a gender discrimination case marks a significant milestone in the legal recognition of women’s equality and autonomy, particularly in matters of employment and quota-based appointments. The case centred on whether marriage could disqualify a daughter from being appointed under the quota reserved for children of deceased or incapacitated civil servants.
The petitioner, Farakh Naz, a resident of Karak in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, was appointed as a primary school teacher in 2022 following her mother’s retirement on medical grounds. However, her appointment was abruptly revoked in 2023 after her marriage, with the official explanation that a married woman was no longer eligible for the quota benefit.
That raised serious questions about gender equality, the legal status of women, and the interpretation of constitutional rights. An internal clarification later suggested that a married daughter might still be considered eligible if she were separated from her husband and dependent on her parents. But this provided little comfort to the petitioner, whose appointment was withdrawn solely on the basis of her marital status. Creditably for her, Naz did not give up. She challenged the termination order through all relevant departmental channels, and the matter ultimately reached the Supreme Court.
The verdict, authored by Justice Mansoor Ali Shah (later resigned in protest against the 27th Constitutional Amendment), is notable for its firm stance on the intrinsic dignity and personhood of women. It clearly holds that marriage does not disqualify a woman from her constitutional entitlements or fundamental rights; it only changes her legal status without diminishing her recognition as a “person” under the Constitution. But viewing women as dependent solely on their fathers or husbands, an outrageous discrimination, perpetuates harmful gender stereotypes that undermine their independence and equality. As observed by the court, “a woman, like a man, is a ‘person’ under the Constitution, and this constitutional status of her personhood remains undisturbed through marriage or divorce.” Through its verdict, the bench also urged legislators and policymakers to re-evaluate existing laws and regulations through the lens of constitutional rights to ensure they reflect equality and individual dignity rather than outdated social assumptions.
The judgment is a significant step in countering institutionalized gender discrimination. It sends a strong message to administrative authorities that government policies must align with constitutional principles, not societal stereotypes that subordinate women to patriarchal or marital constructs. It should also serve as a reminder to lawmakers that legislation needs to evolve in harmony with the Constitution to promote an inclusive and gender-equal society. Rather than reinforcing traditional hierarchies, the law must serve as a tool of justice, equality, and empowerment for all citizens - regardless of gender or marital status.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Comments
Comments are closed for this article.