The BRICS TimesThe bench stressed that while empowering women mattered, there must also be “a balance between rights and long-standing Hindu traditions.”
The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it would move with caution while reviewing challenges to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The bench warned that it would be “careful not to disrupt the Hindu social structure and its guiding principles that have existed for centuries” simply because of some difficult situations where women’s families lost property claims.
“Do not demean the structure of the Hindu society that already exists… As a court, we caution you. There is a Hindu social framework and you cannot bring it down… We do not want our verdict to break something which has been in existence for thousands of years,” remarked a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan. They were hearing petitions against provisions in the Act which prioritize a woman’s husband’s family over her parents and siblings in inheritance when she dies without leaving a will.
The judges highlighted that while protecting women’s rights was essential, there had to be “a balance between social order and giving rights to women.” Until larger questions are considered, the bench referred the parties to the Supreme Court’s mediation centre and listed the matter for November 11.
Throughout the hearing, the court stressed that though many cases involved painful family circumstances, “hard facts” should not result in “bad laws.” The bench explained that inheritance law was deeply tied to Hindu social traditions. They noted that once a woman marries, her gotra changes, and she becomes entitled to maintenance not only from her husband but also from his family. “She will not seek maintenance from her brother or sister. What is the rationale?” the judges asked.
The court also pointed out that earlier reforms, including the 2005 amendment granting daughters equal coparcenary rights in joint family property, had “created rifts in households” and “caused significant strain on family unity.” “We are not against giving women property, but we must consider real-world effects,” the bench noted.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, arguing for one of the petitioners, disagreed strongly. He said the existing rules were discriminatory. “A woman is not a chattel anymore. She has to be treated equally,” Sibal argued, stressing that many women today lead top corporations and must not be denied equal inheritance due to traditions.
When the judges suggested women who wanted to give property to their natal families could make wills, Sibal shot back: “And a man does not need to make a will or do anything. That is discriminatory.”
Senior lawyer Menaka Guruswamy added that the court should concentrate on the law’s statutory provisions, not broad cultural arguments. “Your lordships are not examining Hindu structure but a statutory clause,” she submitted.
The Centre, represented by Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, defended the current framework, calling it “well-designed” and accused the petitioners of seeking to “damage social structure.”
The dispute centres on sections 15 and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act. These sections outline a separate line of succession for Hindu women who die intestate. Unlike Hindu men, whose property is shared equally by their wives, children and mothers, a Hindu woman’s property first passes to her children and husband. If she leaves behind no children or husband, her husband’s heirs inherit before her own parents. Only in the absence of any heirs on the husband’s side does her property return to her family.
This system means that even a woman’s self-earned property can bypass her parents and siblings, going instead to her in-laws. Critics argue this system discriminates against women and fails to reflect modern realities.
The first petition challenging this law was filed in 2018 by Mumbai resident Kamal Anant Khopkar. Although his case was settled, similar petitions are still being heard by the top court.
In November 2024, the same bench had voiced caution when Justice Nagarathna (then with Justice Pankaj Mithal) described the provisions as “scientific and logical.” At that time, the court noted the debate was not strictly about gender justice but about competing inheritance claims between parents and in-laws.
The judges explained then that cultural practices could not be ignored. They reasoned that property coming from a woman’s parents should return to them, while assets from her husband’s side must pass to his heirs. “How can others claim? It’s so scientific and logical,” the court had stated.
These petitions raise key constitutional questions on gender equality. In 2019, a bench led by Justice DY Chandrachud had admitted the issue carried “significant” constitutional importance. The Centre has consistently defended the law, insisting that hardships alone cannot make a statute unconstitutional.
On Wednesday, the bench indicated it was “prima facie not inclined” to strike down the provisions and urged parties to settle their disputes instead. “We do not want to upset what has existed for thousands of years. You are just a handful of petitioners, resolve this,” the judges told lawyers.
Still, the court left the door open for future consideration. “No doubt, Hindu succession laws had many imbalances, but there have been changes. On one hand, there is progress in law, yet on the other, families have broken apart. There must be balance between tradition and granting rights to women,” the bench concluded.
