In a significant ruling, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh has affirmed that Kashmiri pandit women who migrated from the Valley after 1989 due to security concerns will not lose their migrant status simply by marrying non-migrants. The judgment, delivered on November 11, addressed a crucial question regarding the eligibility of two women for government employment under a special scheme for migrants.
The case centered on the Jammu & Kashmir government’s challenge to the Central Administrative Tribunal’s (CAT) order to appoint two Kashmiri pandit women as Legal Assistants in the Department of Disaster Management, Relief, Rehabilitation, and Reconstruction. The women had been excluded from the final selection list after it was revealed they had married non-migrants. The State argued that they had concealed this fact, but the women’s counsel contended that their migrant status remained intact despite their marriages.
In a powerful rebuke, the court ruled that the migrant status of a woman cannot be nullified merely because of her choice of a spouse. In doing so, the judges highlighted the deeply entrenched patriarchy that underpins such policies, which have historically discriminated against women. The court emphasized that the nature of migration—especially when forced by external circumstances such as conflict—should not be used as a means to penalize women for their personal choices.
The judges observed that expecting women to remain unmarried to preserve their migrant status was unreasonable and discriminatory, noting that many Kashmiri women would not have found a suitable Kashmiri match after migrating. They further pointed out the gender disparity in migrant status, as male migrants retain their status regardless of marriage to non-migrants.
The court reaffirmed the legitimacy of the women’s migrant status, which was established by their forced displacement from the Valley in the wake of the 1989 exodus. Rejecting the State’s appeal, the court ordered that the women be appointed to the advertised positions within four weeks.
This decision underscores the court’s commitment to gender equality, rejecting outdated notions that marriage could diminish a woman’s rights or status. It also calls attention to the larger societal issues of patriarchy that continue to shape policies and laws affecting women.
