"This is an interesting case:" Supreme Court on challenge to Section 15 of Hindu Succession Act

The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted the Central government three weeks to file its counter affidavit in a plea challenging the validity of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Kamal Anant Khopkar Versus Union of India & Anr.]..A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Bela M Trivedi observed that "this is an interesting case" and posted the case for final hearing on May 18, 2022.The provision has been assailed on the ground that it discriminates when it comes to the devolution of property in case of a woman dying intestate (without a will) as against devolution of property of a man dying intestate.When a Division Bench had heard the matter earlier, it had said that the matter would have to be heard by a three-judge Bench following which it came up before a three-judge Bench. The top court had also appointed Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora as an Amicus Curiae.When the matter came up for hearing on Tuesday, advocate Mrunal Dattatraya Buva submitted that Centre has not filed its response for the last four years. She requested the Court to keep the matter for final hearing before the Court closes for summer vacation in May.The Court then directed the Centre to file its counter-affidavit within three weeks and made it clear that it would proceed with the final hearing. .The plea filed through advocates Mrunal Dattatraya and Dhairyashil Salunkhe has contended that Section 15 discriminates between men and women with respect to devolution of property intestate.Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act gives priority to the heirs of the husband over the parents of the deceased if a Hindu woman dies without making a will, the plea said. Since the husband is alive at the time of her death, he takes all her property without leaving any share for her own mother or father. This is because they come in the next order in comparison to the hierarchy of the Hindu man dies intestate whose mother is provided in the class 1 heir class, it was pointed out.Section 15(2) provides source of acquisition of property as a basis to devolution of property if a woman dies intestate-issueless; whereas for man under Sections 8 or 10 no source based devolution of a property is provided when he dies intestate. Further the property of a woman goes back to a source from whom she inherited the property such as father, husband and father-in-law. However again it discriminates against mother, as, even if woman inherits from her mother, her father‘s heirs succeed the property, it was contended.Succession laws for Hindu women are governed by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Section 14 of the Act clarifies Hindu woman is absolute owner of her property and Sections 15 and 16 give the rules of inheritance and the order of succession. However, the relevant provisions of the Act do not consider a Hindu woman to be an independent person capable of transferring her property to her blood relatives. The argument that the scheme under the Act providing inheritance to be kept in male linage is to keep property within the family, is also irrational because if that was the case, a Hindu man's property would not be inherited by daughters, sisters 'sons and sisters' daughters, as they marry into other people's homes. So the only basis for the classification is gender, it was submitted.Sections 15 and 16, therefore, go against gender equality and violate Article 14 of the Constitution. "Social status based on patriarchal values or social status based on male compassion are completely inconsistent with Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution," the petitioner submitted.Provisions under challengeSection 15 read with Section 16 provides for devolution of property of women dying intestate, while Section 8 read with Section 16 provides for devolution of property of men dying intestate.Section 15 provides the general rules of succession in the case of female Hindus. Sub-section (1) lays down that the property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the following rules set out in Section 16:(a) firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband;(b) secondly, upon the heirs of the husband;(c) thirdly, upon the mother and father;(d) fourthly, upon the heirs of the father; and(e) lastly, upon the heirs of the mother.Section 16 deals with the order of succession and manner of distribution among heirs of a female Hindu. It stipulates that among the heirs specified in sub-section (1) of Section 15, those in one entry shall be preferred to those in any succeeding entry and those included in the same entry shall take simultaneously.On the other hand, Section 8 (general rules of succession in the case of males) provides that the property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve in the following manner:(a) firstly, upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class I of the Schedule; [Heirs in Class I are- Son; daughter; widow; mother; son of a pre-deceased son; daughter of a pre-deceased son; son of a pre-deceased daughter; daughter of a pre-deceased daughter; widow of a pre-deceased son; son of a pre-deceased son of a pre- deceased son; daughter of a pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased son; widow of a pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased son](b) secondly, if there is no heir of class I, then upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class II of the Schedule;[Heirs in class II are:I. Father.II. (1) Son's daughter's son, (2) son's daughter's daughter, (3) brother, (4) sister.III. (1) Daughter's son's son, (2) daughter's son's daughter, (3) daughter's daughter's son, (4) daughter's daughter's daughter.IV. (1) Brother's son, (2) sister's son, (3) brother's daughter, (4) sister's daughter.V. Father's father; father's mother.VI. Father's widow; brother's widow.VII. Father's brother; father's sister.VIII. Mother's father; mother's mother.IX. Mother's brother; mother's sister.Explanation.—In this Schedule, references to a brother or sister do not include references to a brother or sister by uterine blood](c) thirdly, if there is no heir of any of the two classes, then upon the agnates of the deceased; and(d) lastly, if there is no agnate, then upon the cognates of the deceased.Section 10 of the Act provides that the property of an intestate shall be divided among the heirs in class I of the Schedule in accordance with the following rules:Rule 1: The intestate's widow, or if there are more widows than one, all the widows together, shall take one share.Rule 2: The surviving sons and daughters and the mother of the intestate shall each take one share.Rule 3: The heirs In the branch of each pre-deceased son or each pre-deceased daughter of the intestate shall take between them one share.Rule 4: The distribution of the share referred to in Rule 3— (i) among the heirs in the branch of the pre-deceased son shall be so made that his widow (or widows together) and the surviving sons and daughters get equal portions; and the branch of his pre-deceased sons gets the same portion; (ii) among the heirs in the branch of the pre-deceased daughter shall be so made that the surviving sons and daughters get equal portions..The petitionThe petitioner has contended that the discrimination in the above provisions is only based on gender and not on family ties.She had also filed a special leave petition against an order of the Bombay High Court rejecting her caveat on the ground that she did not have a caveatable interest in the property of her deceased daughter, during the lifetime of the spouse of the deceased. However, the same was disposed of after it was brought to the Court’s notice that the matter had been settled.The Court had, however, issued notice on the writ petition in 2019 on the ground that it raised an important question on gender equality..[Read Order]