The Supreme Court has ruled that a woman’s legal and social status does not change due to marriage or divorce, and that her constitutional and fundamental rights remain intact under all circumstances.
According to the clarification issued on Thursday, the court noted that women’s participation in public affairs is not a privilege but a fundamental right that has long been denied to them. Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah observed that when women work in fields such as education, administration, policy, health, and justice, institutions benefit from broader experience, and governance improves.
The court set aside the February 14, 2024, order of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal, Peshawar.
Justice Shah recalled that in a previous case decided in March, the court had already held that a woman’s legal rights, personality, and freedom do not depend on marriage and are not extinguished by it.
He added that equal participation of women in public life is essential not only for financial empowerment but also for social development, good governance, and constitutional democracy. He noted that this principle is recognized worldwide under the Sustainable Development Goals and many constitutional frameworks that support equal opportunities for men and women in public service.
The case before the court concerned whether a married daughter could be appointed under the quota reserved for children whose parents die or become disabled during service.
The petitioner, Farrukh Naz, was appointed in April 2022 in place of her mother upon her retirement, but her appointment was withdrawn in 2023 after her marriage. The decision was based on a 2022 clarification stating that married daughters were not eligible for the quota.
A subsequent clarification in April 2023 stated that a married daughter could be eligible if she were separated from her husband and dependent on her parents. Her departmental appeal and later tribunal appeal were rejected—decisions now overturned by the Supreme Court.
In his 11-page ruling, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah directed lawmakers and policymakers to view women as autonomous individuals and not subordinate to male-centric or marriage-based assumptions while drafting or interpreting laws.
He said treating women as secondary or limiting their rights based on marriage violates their dignity, equality, and fundamental rights.
The court observed that such actions not only harm women but also hurt society and future generations, as women’s unique perspectives and experiences are crucial to social progress.
Justice Shah emphasized that marriage may alter legal status but cannot remove a woman’s constitutional rights or personal identity.
He noted that the assumption that a daughter is always dependent first on her father and then on her husband is unconstitutional and undermines her individuality and autonomy.
The judgment also referenced American philosopher Martha Nussbaum’s view that no society can be just if it denies women equal opportunities to realize their full human potential.
