The Supreme Court, while hearing petitions challenging provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, observed that it would move cautiously, balancing women’s rights with the Hindu social structure.

About Hindu Succession Act, 1956

• The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, governs intestate succession (when a person dies without a will).
• Originally recognized only male heirs for inheritance of property.
• In the traditional Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), membership included male descendants of a common ancestor, along with their mothers, wives, and unmarried daughters.
• 2005 Amendment 
• • Recognized women as coparceners, granting them equal rights in ancestral property.
  • Section 6 was amended to make a daughter of a coparcener a coparcener by birth, in her own right.
  • Daughters were given the same rights and liabilities in coparcenary property as sons, including rights of partition and inheritance.

Coverage

• The Act governs intestate succession for Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs.
• It excludes Muslims, Christians, Parsis, and Jews, who are governed by their respective personal laws.
• It does not apply to members of any  Scheduled Tribe unless the Central Government directs otherwise through a notification.

Key Provisions of the Act

Coparcenary Rights (Sec. 6)

• Equal Rights of Daughters : Daughters are coparceners by birth with the same rights and liabilities as sons.
• Devolution of Coparcenary Property : Interest of a deceased coparcener devolves by succession, not survivorship.
• Abolition of Pious Obligation : Sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons are not liable for ancestral debts contracted after 20 Dec 2004.

Succession of Males

• General rules of succession in the case of males (Section 8): This section outlines the order of succession for a male Hindu’s property, prioritizing Class I heirs, followed by Class II heirs, agnates, and then cognates. 
• Order of succession among heirs in the Schedule (Section 9): It clarifies that Class I heirs inherit simultaneously and exclude all others, while within Class II, heirs in earlier entries are preferred. 
• Distribution of property among heirs in class I of the Schedule (Section 10): This section specifies the rules for dividing an intestate’s property among the heirs listed in Class I. Succession of Females
• Absolute Ownership (Sec. 14): Any property possessed by a female Hindu is her absolute property.

Succession of Females

• “General rules of succession for female Hindus (Sec. 15): Property devolves (1) on sons, daughters, and husband; (2) husband’s heirs; (3) parents; (4) father’s heirs; (5) mother’s heirs.”
• “Special rule for female succession (Sec. 15(2)): Property inherited from parents goes to the father’s heirs, while property from a husband or father-in-law goes to the husband’s heirs if there are no children.”
• “Section 16 specifies the order and method of distributing property among the heirs of a female Hindu.”

General Provisions

• Escheat (Sec. 29): Property passes to the Government if no heir exists.
• Disqualification – Murder (Sec. 25): A murderer/abettor cannot inherit the victim’s property.
• Disqualification – Conversion (Sec. 26): Descendants of converts are disqualified “unless they are Hindus at the time succession opens.”
• No Disqualification for Defect (Sec. 28): Disease, defect, or deformity does not bar inheritance.
• Testamentary Succession (Sec. 30): Any Hindu may dispose of property by will.

Contested Provisions (Sections 15 & 16)

• “Section 15(1): A Hindu woman’s intestate property devolves in the following order — (1) sons, daughters, and husband, (2) husband’s heirs, (3) parents, (4) father’s heirs, (5) mother’s heirs.”
• Section 16: Lays down the order of succession, reinforcing the priority of the husband’s lineage over the woman’s natal family.
• These provisions have been challenged as discriminatory because they give priority to the husband’s lineage over the woman’s natal family, potentially diluting equal inheritance rights for women.

Supreme Court’s Observations

• The Supreme Court has emphasized caution in adjudicating these petitions, recognizing the importance of protecting women’s rights while being mindful of the traditional Hindu social structure.
• The Court underlined the need to maintain a balance between social structure and gender justice, avoiding any judicial decisions that would disrupt longstanding societal practices abruptly.

Previous Judgements 

• Prakash v. Phulavati (2016): Initially, the Supreme Court held that daughters could claim coparcener rights only if the father (coparcener) was alive on 9 September 2005, the date of the amendment. 
  • However, this decision was later overruled by Vineeta Sharma Case.
• Danamma v. Amar (2018): This case recognized daughters’ coparcenary rights even though the father had died before the 2005 amendment.
  • It granted retroactive effect establishing daughters as coparceners by birth, dismantling previous discrimination.
• Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020): This apex court judgment definitively affirmed daughters as coparceners by birth with equal coparcenary rights, regardless of whether the father was alive on the date of the 2005 amendment. 

Significance of Case

• Women’s Rights: The case could redefine gender equality in Hindu inheritance laws.
• Social Balance: The SC has emphasized careful balancing of progressive inheritance rights for women while preserving Hindu cultural and social traditions, to maintain continuity without abrupt disruptions to traditional family structures.
• Legislative Gap: These judicial clarifications highlight the ongoing absence of comprehensive legislative reforms in Hindu succession laws, making judicial interpretation essential for resolving ambiguities and advancing gender justice in property law.

DOWNLOAD PDF