Supreme Court warns: "Don't Demean Hindu Society"

The Supreme Court recently called for caution while dealing with the structure of Hindu Society. “Do not demean the structure of the Hindu society. As a court, we are putting you to caution. There is a Hindu social structure and you do not bring it down...We do not want by our judgment to break something which has been there for thousands of years,” a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan said.

These observations were made by the bench as it heard a clutch of petitions challenging certain provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Court cautioned that it would be “wary of shattering the Hindu social structure and its basic tenets that have been in existence for thousands of years” merely because some cases present hard facts of parents or siblings of a woman being deprived of her property.

The issue before court is that of woman’s husband’s family being given priority over her own parents and siblings in inheritance matters if she dies intestate. Sections 15 and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act, which lay down a distinct line of succession for Hindu women dying intestate, are under challenge.

Section 15 lays down general rules of succession in the case of female Hindus and states that the property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in section 16, firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband; secondly, upon the heirs of the husband; thirdly, upon the mother and father; fourthly, upon the heirs of the father; and lastly, upon the heirs of the mother. Furthermore, it clarifies that any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the father; and any property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or from her father-in-law shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the husband. Section 16 lays down the rules as per which the order of succession among the heirs referred to in section 15 shall be, and the distribution of the intestates property among those heirs shall take place.

Court noted that the law of inheritance is closely intertwined with Hindu social traditions, and also cited an example of a woman’s gotra changing after marriage. We are not against giving properties to women but we cannot also lose sight of the real effects, the court further remarked.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for one of the petitioners, told the bench that the provisions under challenge were exclusionary and discriminatory and women were not 'chattel' anymore. To this the court suggested that women should execute wills to avoid such issues.

Centre, represented by Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, defended the law in question as “well-crafted”.