Don’t demean Hindu society structure: Supreme Court
The bench underlined that while women’s rights were important, there had to be “a balance between social structure and giving rights to women
The Supreme Court on Wednesday stressed that it would tread carefully while examining challenges to provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, cautioning 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.
“Do not demean the structure of the Hindu society that we already have…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,” observed a bench of justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan, as it heard a clutch of petitions challenging the gender-based scheme of succession under the 1956 Act. The impugned provisions prioritise a woman’s husband’s family over her parents and siblings in inheritance matters if she dies intestate.
The bench underlined that while women’s rights were important, there had to be “a balance between social structure and giving rights to women.” Pending consideration of the broader issues, the court referred the parties before it to the Supreme Court’s mediation centre to explore settlement and fixed November 11 for further hearing.
During the hearing, the bench repeatedly emphasised that while some disputes before it involved difficult family circumstances, courts must avoid allowing “hard facts” to dictate the making of “bad laws.”
The bench said that the law of inheritance was closely intertwined with Hindu social traditions, citing examples of how after marriage a woman’s gotra changes and she is entitled to claim maintenance not only from her husband but also from her in-laws. “She will not file a maintenance petition against her brother or her sister. What is the rationale?” the bench asked.
The judges also noted that past amendments in succession law, particularly the 2005 amendment granting daughters coparcenary rights in joint family property, had “created rifts in families” and “inflicted quite a bit of damage to the family structure.” “We are not against giving properties to women but we cannot also lose sight of the real effects,” the court remarked.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for one of the petitioners, countered that the provisions under challenge were exclusionary and discriminatory. “A woman is not a chattel anymore. She has to be treated equally,” said Sibal, adding that many women now head large corporations and could not be denied equal inheritance rights simply because of traditions.
When the bench suggested that women who wished to give property to their natal families should execute wills, Sibal shot back: “And a man does not have to make a will or do anything like that. That is discriminatory.”
Senior counsel Menaka Guruswamy also urged the bench to focus on the statutory framework rather than broader notions of Hindu society. “Your lordships are not seized of Hindu structure but this matter is about a statutory provision,” she submitted.
The Centre, represented by additional solicitor general KM Nataraj, defended the law as “well-crafted” and accused the petitioners of seeking to “destroy the social structure.”
At the heart of the controversy are sections 15 and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act, which lay down a distinct line of succession for Hindu women dying intestate. While the property of a Hindu man who dies without a will devolves equally on his wife, children and mother, a Hindu woman’s property is inherited first by her children and husband. If she dies issueless and without a husband, her husband’s heirs take precedence over her parents. Only if her husband has no heirs does the property revert to her own family.
The effect is that even a woman’s self-acquired assets may bypass her parents and siblings in favour of her in-laws. Critics argue that this framework discriminates against women and fails to account for modern realities.
The first petition against these provisions was filed in 2018 by Mumbai resident Kamal Anant Khopkar, whose case was later settled, but related petitions continue to be heard by the top court.
The latest hearing follows a similar caution sounded by the same bench in November 2024, when Justice Nagarathna (then sitting with Justice Pankaj Mithal) described the statutory scheme as “scientific and logical” and said the dispute was not about “gender justice” but about competing claims of parents and in-laws over a deceased woman’s property.
At that time, the bench had underlined that cultural practices and the structure of Hindu society could not be undermined solely for financial gain. It had pointed out that if property came from a woman’s parents, it would revert to them, while property derived from her husband and in-laws would devolve upon them. “How can other relations claim? It’s so scientific and logical,” the court had said.
The petitions have raised questions of gender equality under the Constitution, and a previous bench led by Justice DY Chandrachud (as he then was) in 2019 had acknowledged that the issue was of “important” constitutional dimension. The Centre, however, has consistently defended the provisions, citing past rulings and the principle that hardship alone cannot render a law unconstitutional.
On Wednesday, the present bench made clear that it was “prima facie not inclined” to strike down the provisions, urging the parties to resolve their disputes through mediation instead. “We do not want to upset something which has been there for thousands of years. You are a handful of petitioners, you settle it,” the bench told the lawyers.
At the same time, it left open the possibility of further deliberation. “No doubt, there had been lots of imbalance in the Hindu succession laws but there have been changes in law. On one hand, there is progress in terms of law and jurisprudence but on the other, there has been a breakdown in Hindu families as well. There has to be a balance between social structure and giving rights to women,” the bench observed.
