Author: Devayani Shukla, Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad.
Abstract
Humanity has surely achieved amazing heights with the passage of time and the development of the modern period. The question is whether equality in our society would have allowed us to do much more. It is true that every nation in the world has experienced gender inequality at some point in its history. The deeply ingrained patriarchal practices that sustain discrimination against women in property rights are the main subject of this article’s investigation into gender inequality in Indian inheritance laws. It explores the historical background of women’s marginalisation, from their equal status in the Vedic era to their restricted privileges in the Middle Ages. A comprehensive evaluation of the 1956 Hindu Succession Act and its 2005 modification shows how important it is for granting daughters coparcenary status, which increases women’s property rights. Nonetheless, the limitations of the amendment are discussed, including the exclusion of specific partnerships and inconsistencies with state laws.
Introduction
India practices various religions; hence, inheritance laws are not standardized. However, the patriarchal values that promote discrimination against women are present in these personal regulations. Since the dawn of time, men have utilized laws and scriptures to uphold a hierarchy of power over the handling of property. The basis of women’s tyranny, slavery, and inferiority is the denial of ancestral property. A woman was considered a burden that must be given to her married family in her country of origin. Therefore, to prevent losing assets from their ancestors, she was not authorized to inherit any property. Because of the traditional socioeconomic framework, which supports a “son-centered economy,” women are excluded from inheritance, maintaining their servitude. In today’s society, arguments have been made, and changes have been suggested to overcome ingrained preconceptions and discriminatory laws to attain greater parity between men and women. Because Article 14 of the Indian Constitution promotes gender equality, many customs and regulations must be evaluated through the lenses of sex and religious discrimination to be valid under Indian law. However, the State’s participation in religion has always been divisive, permitting discriminatory practices to endure under the guise of preserving the tranquility and peace of the private sector. As the succession rules of each society are followed, the many forms of discrimination against women will come to light, allowing scholars to assess if gender equality has been achieved.
In India, female empowerment and inheritance fairness have lately received much focus and sparked some debate. The reality that judges are aware of this concern and are taking action to resolve gender-related challenges, especially about ancestor assets, is promising.
Historic Background
Women enjoyed the same freedom to exercise numerous rights and privileges as men during the Vedic era. Nearly all levels regarded them as being equal. Respect was shown to women in their households. They could pick their life partner, participate in gatherings, and receive an education. Women have faced discrimination when discussing inheritance. Only the son received the legacy of the father’s possessions. The Purdah system and early marriage impacted women’s education and social mobility. Only the wealthy have access to education because they can afford it. Female infanticide was practiced due to the belief that the birth of a daughter was a bad omen.
Every Muslim in this medieval era was permitted to have a minimum of four wives. Muslim women strictly followed the purdah law. Muslim women had no access to education due to their societal norms. They could file for divorce and get remarried. They also have a claim to a share of their parents’ wealth. In general, women’s position fell during the medieval era. As a result, we can conclude that women’s status was far lower than men’s during the Sultanate, and they experienced several social ills. The women were viewed as mere amusements.
Gender Injustice
There is gender inequality regularly in a variety of spheres of life. Women typically experience much prejudice, even when it comes to personal legislation. This calls for action to advance gender equality and guarantee gender justice for all. It is long past time to abolish antiquated customs that prevent women from asserting their rights and to create new legal provisions that guarantee gender equity.
Legal Framework
The Hindu Succession Act of 1956 has been modified by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Bill of 2004. The Amended Act covers Buddhists, Hindus, Jains, and Sikhs. This change removed a number of discriminatory clauses from the 1956 Hindu Succession Act. The modification is that a coparcener’s daughter will be a coparcener from birth.
Modifications Implemented by the 2005 Amendment:
a) Section 4(2): This part was left out since it did not apply to agricultural land rights and was governed by state-level lease regulations. Women faced prejudice as they did not have stakes in or rights to agrarian areas. Therefore, by leaving out this phrase, women’s interests in agricultural land are secured, just as they are for men.
b) Section 6: According to the revised clause, the daughter is given the same rights and obligations as a male at birth and is made a coparcener in the Hindu Undivided Family’s property. Hindu women have different property rights depending on their position in the family and their marital status, including whether they are wives, mothers, widows, or deserters. It also depends on the type of property being considered, including whether it is inherited, ancestral, or self-acquired when it is real estate, a house, or marital property.
c) Section 23: The omission of Section 23 of the Act, which acted unfairly against female heirs who desired a share in the living residence with the intestate until the male successor made such a decision, was another adjustment made by the revision. Before the passage of the Amendment Act, a woman’s ability to reside in a home was severely restricted, and even then, it was only possible if she was unmarried, divorced, deserted, or widowed. The male family members’ whims and preferences also impacted her ability to dwell there.
d) Section 24: The rationale behind the clause was that since a widow is still regarded as the surviving spouse until she marries again, she should only be entitled to her deceased husband’s property during that time. Because of the provision’s morally indefensible foundation, the amendment repealed it.
e) Section 30: The phrase “disposed of by him or her” was converted to “disposed of by him or her.” Due to this modification, the female heirs were given more freedom to dispose of the property as they deemed fit.
Results Of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act Of 2005:
The Amended Act was necessary at the time since it assisted in replacing outdated provisions of the Succession Act with fresh ones. Most of the rights that women needed to guarantee gender equality in property inheritance were granted to them by this amendment. They received the right to become co-owners and manage the property however they wished. The Hindu Undivided Families law underwent significant positive improvements to ensure that women have equal rights. The amendment was a positive step towards achieving the equality envisaged in Chapters III, IV, and IVA of the Indian Constitution.
Shortcomings Of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005:
The Principal Act’s revision has had a significant positive impact, but several flaws warrant serious concern. The retention of Article 15 is the amendment’s flaw, as it interferes with the causes of gender parity and women’s empowerment. In the cited portion, women are solely acknowledged in their relationships with men, such as wives, daughters, etc. As a result, it threatens a woman’s identity and individuality. The fact that the new Act only addresses daughters and wives is another disadvantage. Sisters and daughter-in-law are not covered under the scope of the amendment. The change is necessary since it is still determined if the legislation would trump and precede state laws. The change removed Section 4(2), which exempted agricultural land from coparcenary property. Because agricultural land is included on the State list, a dilemma results.
Judicial Opinions
Prakash & Ors. v. Phulawati & Ors.
Facts –
The topics of contention were the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005 and the retrospective application of ancestral and self-acquired property. The defendant in the court’s petition had brought a claim for possession of one asset in question, a further portion of an additional help belonging to her (the respondent’s) father, and a division of ancestor estates at the Trial Court of Belgaum. Respondent obtained the conventional assets after her father’s passing. The Trial Court examined all the submitted considerations that had no significance on the matter in and of itself, which caused a delay in the release of the judgment. The Respondent had a right to her share of the assets as of the day the Amendment Act took effect on September 9, 2005, by Section 6(1) of the Act. The trial court partially upheld the lawsuit. The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s ruling after the Respondents appealed it.
Judgment
Even though the Amendment Act is social legislation, the Supreme Court ruled that it can only be implemented retrospectively, explicitly intended by the government, and stated in such law.
The Respondent maintained that a daughter automatically inherited the right to all her father’s property at birth, regardless of whether a father passed away before or after the Amendment Act’s implementation. The Amendment Act was declared effective beginning on September 9, 2005, and the Supreme Court rejected this argument by pointing out that its provisions would only be enforced if the contested coparcener died after that date. As a result, the Appellant’s appeal was granted.
Danamma v. Amar Singh 2018
In this instance, the father passed away in 2001. He was the father of two daughters, two sons, and a wife. The Apex Court stated during the hearing of this case that “the coparcenary concept is created by the quite factum of birth in a coparcenary matter; consequently, the sons and daughters have the coparceners rights by birth.” And as a result, the court decided that regardless of whether the father was alive when the new section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act took effect on September 9, 2005, the daughters are likewise coparceners and are entitled to an equal share in the property as the boys do.
Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma
The complainant in this case, Vineeta Sharma, filed a lawsuit against her family members, involving her brother, for an equal amount of the inherited money. In 2005, their dad succumbed on September 9. The appellant was unable to claim the property, according to the Delhi High Court, since Section 6 had been revised in 2005. The Supreme Court received a follow-up appeal.
The Supreme Court determined that the daughter had an equal birthright to the property. In the past, this privilege was reserved for sons. The choice puts the son and daughter on an equal footing. Whether or not the father is still living, the daughter has privileges of her own.
Mary Roy v. State of Kerala
Facts –
It all commenced when Mary Roy was not given a fair chance for her father’s fortune. In doing so, she began a historical case for gaining gender justice in India by prosecuting her brother.
The crucial question before the Supreme Court was whether the Indian Succession Act, 1925 or the Travancore Christian Succession Act, 1917 were applicable to succession by intestacy to the property of members of the Indian Christian community in regions that had previously been annexed by the former Travancore state.
Judgment –
The Indian Succession Act of 1925 was maintained as supreme by the Supreme Court in a ruling from 1986. The Indian Succession Act of 1925 would be applied to the Indian Christian Community in the former state of Travancore if the deceased parent did not leave a will. The current ruling halted the traditionally acceptable practice of denying women their due inheritance in Syrian Christian families.
Conclusion
The current situation is far from producing a genuinely egalitarian position, even if it should be recognized that personal succession rules have evolved to accommodate women and acknowledge their inheritance rights. Women are subjugated as inferior and made to stay dependent even while their stake in property is limited. Given the traditional socioeconomic environment, women commonly lose their property without arguing against this discrimination in court because of a lack of education and awareness of their rights. Furthermore, due to firmly established patriarchal values, women are either obligated to defend their rightful property, like in the case of the Hindu tradition known as “haq tyag,” or they are terrified to do so. It is a sensitive and controversial notion to remove all personal laws by implementing a Uniform Civil Code. India is known for having a heterogeneous culture that cultivates a wide range of communities, sects, and customs. However, many supporters of the plan contend that by doing so, the gender discrimination that has been tolerated for generations will be ended. To reach a favorable and genuinely consistent result with our constitutional values, the legislature and courts play a crucial role in assessing the interests of all parties involved. However, to restore women to their proper place and work toward gender justice, society must also change and re-examine its traditions, values, and practices.
FAQs
1. How influential is the 2005 Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act?
Ans. The 2005 amendment guaranteed daughters the same rights and responsibilities as sons by granting them equal coparcenary rights in Hindu Undivided Family property from birth. Additionally, discriminatory clauses like Section 23, which restricted women’s rights in their families, were repealed.
2. What limitations are imposed by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act of 2005?
Ans. The change does not apply to some relationships, such as sisters and daughters-in-law. Additionally, it creates uncertainty about whether state laws supersede federal statutes, particularly when it comes to agricultural land.
3. How was the retroactive applicability of the amendment viewed by the Supreme Court in significant cases?
Ans. The Supreme Court made it clear in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020) that daughters have the same coparcenary rights whether or not their father was still living at the time the amendment took effect. This promoted gender equality by confirming women’s property rights from birth.
4. How does the persistent prejudice contribute to women’s lack of inheritance rights?
Ans. Due to social pressures, ignorance, or fear of family strife, patriarchal standards often lead women to give up their rightful property claims. In order to preserve family harmony, customs such as “haq tyag” compel women to forfeit their inheritance.
5. Can gender disparities in succession laws be eliminated by implementing a Uniform Civil Code?
Ans. The universal civil code is an issue of disagreement. India’s cultural diversity and sensitivity to personal laws make it challenging to adopt, even though it may standardize inheritance laws across groups and advance gender equality.
