A Kashmiri Pandit woman will not lose her status as a migrant just because she married someone who is not a migrant, according to the J&K&L High Court.
The Jammu and Kashmir & Ladakh High Court decided that a Kashmiri Pandit woman who left the Kashmir Valley in the 1990s for safety reasons would not lose her “migrant” status just because she marries someone who is not a migrant. During the 1990s, many Kashmiri Pandit families had to escape the region due to rising conflict. To help them return and settle, the State government introduced a special job program in 2009 to provide jobs for Kashmiri migrants. In this case, two Kashmiri Pandit women applied for jobs as Legal Assistants in the Department of Disaster Management, Relief, Rehabilitation, and Reconstruction. They were chosen for the roles but were later taken off the final list because they married non-migrants. The authorities claimed they had not revealed this information and that their migrant status changed with their marriage. However, the women argued that their migrant status should stay the same.
A Division Bench, including Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Mohammad Yousuf Wani, stated, “To say that a woman loses her migrant status simply because she marries a non-migrant would be unfair and against the idea of justice.” The Court looked into the important issue of whether a Kashmiri migrant woman could lose her status by marrying a non-migrant. The Court noted, “This view goes against human nature. These women, who had to leave their homes in the Kashmir Valley through no fault of their own, should not have to stay unmarried just to keep their job eligibility as migrants.”
The Court highlighted the existing gender bias in the system, noting that male migrants retained their status even if they married non-migrants, which shows the unfairness of this policy. The Court stated that this situation arises from the prevailing patriarchy in society. It added that such discrimination cannot be accepted in employment matters under the State/UT. The Court also confirmed that the women involved had not lost their migrant status. According to the relevant laws, a “migrant” is defined as someone who had to leave the Kashmir Valley after 1989, which applied to these women. The Court pointed out that the State’s argument about the women’s marriage status was not relevant, as the original job advertisement did not mention that marrying a non-migrant would disqualify them.
The Court also mentioned, “Moreover, the appellants [State] failed to demonstrate any significant injustice to those who might have been selected if there had been full disclosure. Thus, this argument is dismissed.” Supporting the Central Administrative Tribunal’s (CAT) decision, the High Court ordered the State authorities to provide appointment orders to the two women within four weeks.
Cause Title: UT of J&K & Ors. v. Seema Koul & Anr.
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Additional Advocate General Monika Kohli and Advocate Bhannu Jasrotia, Respondents: Senior Advocate Bimal Roy Jad, along with Advocates Meenakshi Salathia Kaur and Veenu Gupta
