Why in the news?
A three judges bench of the The Supreme Court on August 11, 2020 expanded on a Hindu woman’s right to be a joint legal heir and inherit ancestral property on terms equal to male heirs.
Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005
-The bench pronounced judgement on the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 that gave Hindu women the right to be coparceners or joint legal heirs in the same way a male heir does.
-Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was amended that year to make a daughter of a coparcener also a coparcener by birth “in her own right in the same manner as the son”.
Why it was challenged?
-While the 2005 law granted equal rights to women, questions were raised in multiple cases on whether the law applied retrospectively, and if the rights of women depended on the living status of the father through whom they would inherit.
–In Prakash v Phulwati (2015), a two-judge Bench headed by Justice A K Goel held that the benefit of the 2005 amendment could be granted only to “living daughters of living coparceners” as on September 9, 2005.
-In February 2018, contrary to the 2015 ruling, a two-judge Bench headed by Justice A K Sikri held that the share of a father who died in 2001 will also pass to his daughters.
-In these contradictory interpretations, it became necessary to be interpreted by the larger bench.
What the Judgement says?
-A three-judge Bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra ruled that a Hindu woman’s right to be a joint heir to the ancestral property is by birth and does not depend on whether her father was alive or not when the law was enacted in 2005.
-Since the coparcenary is by birth, it is not necessary that the father coparcener should be living as on 9.9.2005.
What is Hindu Succession Act, 1956?
-The Mitakshara school of Hindu law was codified as the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
-It governs succession and inheritance of property but only recognised males as legal heirs.
-It applies to Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains and followers of Arya Samaj, Brahmo Samaj too as they are also considered Hindus for the purposes of this law.
-The law doesn’t apply to a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew by religion.
Mitakshara school Vs Dayabagha School
-The Mitakshara- a legal commentary on the Yajnavalkya Smriti, is a legal treatise on inheritance, written by Vijnaneshwara a scholar in the Western Chaiukya court in the 12th century.
In Mitakshara School, sons had an exclusive right by birth in joint family property.
-In the Mitakshara School, the allocation of inherited property was based on the law of possession by birth and a man could leave his self-acquired property to which he willed.
It was followed all over India except Bengal and Assam.
The Dayabhaga is a Hindu law treatise written by Jimutavahana which primarily focuses on inheritance procedure.
In Dayabhaga School, the property is inherited after the death of the person who was in possession of it.
In Bengal and Assam the Dayabagha School was established and in the entire of India apart from in Bengal and Assam Mitakshara School was broaden.
(Source: The Indian Express and Shodhganga)
CLICK HERE FOR UPSC PRELIMS CURRENT AFFAIRS MCQ
CLICK HERE FOR UPSC, BPSC, UPPCS, JPSC, MPPSC, RPSC PRELIMS CURRENT AFFAIRS MCQ
