Hindu Women’s Inheritance Rights

Context

The Supreme Court in a landmark judgment on Hindu ancestral property cleared the legal cobwebs to declare that daughters will have inheritance rights equal to those of sons from properties of fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers right from the codification of the law in 1956.

Justice Arun Mishra, S. Abdul Nazeer and M R Shah ignored out the confusion arising from the apex court's conflicting interpretations of the amended section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, which came into force from September 9, 2005. The Bench said that whether the father alive or not, daughters born before September 9, 2005, too could claim equal right in inheritance.

Background

The Mitakshara school of Hindu law codified as the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 governed succession and inheritance of property but only recognized males as legal heirs. The law applied to everyone who is not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew by religion. Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains and followers of Arya Samaj, Brahmo Samaj are also considered Hindus for the purposes of this law.

Supreme Court Ruling in 2005

Daughters were recognized as joint legal heirs for partition arising from 2005. Section 6 of the act was amended that year to make a daughter of a coparcener also a coparcener by birth “in her own right in the same manner as the son”. The law also gave the daughter the same rights and liabilities “in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son”.

The law applies to ancestral property and to intestate succession in personal property, where succession happens as per law and not through a will.

Present Issue

Different benches of the Supreme Court had taken conflicting views on the issue. Different High Courts had also followed different views of the top court as binding precedents.

In Prakash Vs. Phulwati (2015), a two-judge Bench held that the benefit of the 2005 amendment could be granted only to living daughters of living coparceners as on September 9, 2005 (the date when the amendment came into force).

Contrary to the 2015 ruling, in February 2018, a two-judge Bench held that the share of a father who died in 2001 will also pass to his daughters as coparceners during the partition of the property as per the 2005 law.

Present Ruling

The Apex Court held that the 2005 amendment gave recognition of a right that was in fact accrued by the daughter at birth. Conferral of a right is by birth, and the rights are given in the same manner with incidents of coparcenary as that of a son and she is treated as a coparcener in the same manner with the same rights as if she had been a son at the time of birth.

Government’s Stand

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued in favour of an expansive reading of the law to allow equal rights for women. He referred to the objects and reasons of the 2005 amendment.

Conclusion

The Mitakshara coparcenary law not only contributed to discrimination on the ground of gender but was oppressive and negated the fundamental right of equality guaranteed by the Constitution of India.

The ruling now overrules the verdicts from 2015 and April 2018. It settles the law and expands on the intention of the 2005 legislation to remove the discrimination as contained in section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 by giving equal rights to daughters in the Hindu Mitakshara coparcenary property as the sons have.
Connecting the Article

Connecting the Dots

Question for Prelims

With reference to the section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, consider the following statements:

1. It provides same liabilities to the daughter as to the son.
2. It provides same rights to the daughter as to the son

Which of the following statements is/ are correct?

(a) 1 only
(b) 2 only
(c) Both 1 and 2
(d) Neither 1 nor 2

Question for Mains

Discuss the role of Hindu succession act in promoting the gender equality in Indian society.