The Supreme Court has recently ruled in favour of eradicating gender bias in terms of property inheritance. Women’s rights to be co-heirs and inherit ancestral properties equally as men received a boost, thanks to the court’s verdict on the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.
Details of the Supreme Court Ruling
The Supreme Court confirmed that a Hindu woman is also eligible to be an heir to the ancestral property by right of birth. This stands irrespective of whether her father was alive when the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act came into effect on September 9th, 2005. These amendments, which eliminated discrimination embedded in Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, were further reinforced by the recent ruling, granting equal rights to daughters. The apex court also instructed the High Courts to clear pending cases concerning this issue within six months.
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Before these amendments, only males were recognized as legal heirs under the Mitakshara school of Hindu law, officially known as the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. This act, excluding Muslims, Christians, Parsis and Jews, provided rules for the succession and inheritance of property by Hindus – including Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, Arya Samaj followers, and Brahmo Samaj adherents. According to this act, a joint legal family composed of male descendants from a common ancestor, along with their mothers, wives, and unmarried daughters, could exist, holding the family property collectively.
Understanding the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005
In September 2005, women were allowed to be coparceners for property partitions arising since 2005, owing to the amendment of the 1956 Act. Section 6 was specifically modified to consider a coparcener’s daughter as a coparcener as well, giving her equivalent rights and responsibilities for the coparcenary property just like a son. This law encompasses ancestral property and intestate succession in personal property, where the succession is determined by law instead of a will.
Reasons behind the Amendment
The 174th Law Commission Report suggested the modification in the Hindu succession law. Before the 2005 amendment, states such as Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala had either tweaked the law to provide equal rights to daughters or abolished the Joint Hindu Family System altogether, like Kerala did in 1975.
The Government’s Stand
The Solicitor General of India advocated for a broad interpretation of the law granting equal rights to women. He condemned the Mitakshara coparcenary law of 1956, stating it perpetuated gender discrimination, undermined equality, and contradicted the basic right of equality (Articles 14 to 18) affirmed by the Indian Constitution.
Schools of Hindu Laws: Mitakshara & Dayabhaga
Under the Mitakshara law school, which is derived from a commentary by Vijnaneswara on the Yajnavalkya Smriti, children acquire an interest in the joint family’s ancestral property at birth. However, under the Dayabhaga law school, based on a text by Jimutavahana, this automatic ownership right only comes into effect after the father’s demise. The Mitakshara school, subdivided into Benares, Mithila, Maharashtra, and Dravida schools, is observed across India. Meanwhile, the Dayabhaga school is followed in Bengal and Assam.
