Omprakash v. Radhacharan, a verdict passed by the Honourable Apex Court in 2009, raised a few questions that can be answered only through jurisprudential deliberation on the idea of justice and the ultimate object of laws. The contentious judgement featured into the headlines of multiple news dailies, in particular, when a former judge of the Madras High Court, Prabha Sridevan authored an article condemning the erroneous reasoning applied by the Hon’ble Bench in interpreting Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The Court admitted that the issues of the case were intrinsically connected to moral values, and in fact, it is a hard case to decide on. A developing country like India, in which the judiciary has the obligation to adjudicate over sensitive issues of women’s rights with sufficient care and attention, a verdict like this has far-reaching moral, legal and most importantly social implications. Even today, after more than a decade since the delivery of this verdict, a petition challenging the validity of Section 15 and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is pending at the Apex Court and the judgement is yet to be amended or overruled.
THE BACKGROUND
As per the facts of the case, Narayani Devi’s husband, Deendayal Sharma died of a snake bite within three months after their marriage. She was driven out of her matrimonial house after the death of her husband, went to her natal home, obtained education as well as employment and subsequently acquired property of her own. She never went back or had any relationship with her in-laws since she left her matrimonial house. Her in-laws never enquired about her for the 42 years she stayed in her parent’s place after her husband’s tragic death. However, upon her death, the members of her matrimonial family claimed right over her self-acquired property. The original appellant was the mother of the deceased and the respondents were the sons of the sister of Narayani Devi’s husband. Considering the issue of property dispute, the court opened the legal texts. Under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the law provides for a provision stating the devolution of property upon the death of an intestate female Hindu. General rules of succession given under Section 15 and the order of succession and manner of distribution amongst the heirs of a female Hindu given under Section 16 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 prefer the heirs of the husband over the mother or father or any heirs of mother and father to be the legal inheritor of the properties of the deceased.
Clause (a) of subsection (2) of Section 15 adds an exception to the general rule. When the property is devolved upon the deceased from her parents' side, on her death and in the absence of a son, daughter of the deceased, or children of any predeceased son or daughter, the same would relate back to her parents' family and not to her husband's family. Nonetheless, three facts were not in dispute in the given case, firstly, the property was not devolved upon the deceased from her parent's side, secondly, the property was self acquired by her, and thirdly, the respondents were the heirs of her husband. As the properties of Narayani Devi were not devolved upon her from her parents' side and instead it was entirely her separate property, the only exception to the provision of general rule was not applicable to the fact situation in consideration before the court. As the court itself stated, the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was silent with respect to the devolution of self-acquired property of an intestate female Hindu. In the absence of a clear provision, the substantial question involved in the issue was whether the court should stick to the general rule of succession as provided under Section 15(1) or should rely on the exception provided under Section 15(2)(a) considering morality and value.
The court finally decided to give in to the literal interpretation of the codified laws over the moral and value oriented approach to the circumstance. The court's verdict favoured the claims of Narayani Devi’s in-laws over that of her mother's and brothers'. The unanswered question that remains is whether justice was served. The family members of her matrimonial house who neither treated Narayani Devi as a part of their family nor provided her with the rights and status of a member of the family, were given the right to inherit all her properties. The court reasoned that if a contrary view had to be taken, it would have defied the interpretation of sub-section (1) of Section 15 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 in a manner which was not contemplated by the Parliament and thereby, such a view was not in consonance with the objectives of the legislature while passing the enactment.
JUDICIAL COMPLIANCE WITH GENDER-BASED DISCRIMINATION?
The reasoning behind the verdict as provided by the court is inadequate and fallacious on multiple grounds.
Incorrect understanding of parliamentary intent: The Judiciary failed to give full effect to what Parliament intended. The intent of Parliament while introducing the said provision of law was to send the property back to the source and not to a stranger, after the death of an intestate female Hindu. Therefore, it can be logically deduced from the undisputed facts that the property should be returned back to Narayani’s parents. Moreover, the very act of ‘throwing her out of the family’ should be considered in disqualifying her in-laws from inheriting her property, in a similar manner and reasoning which disqualifies a murderer from inheriting his victim’s property under the same Act.
Violation of Article 15 of the Constitution of India: A comparison of Section 15 with Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, that sets out the general rule of succession for males, reveals the blatant ‘gender inequality’ ingrained in Hindu succession law. Section 8 gives precedence to blood relatives over the relationships arising out of marriage. When a woman is married, even the remotest heir of her husband would be entitled to her property excluding her parents, which simply implies that the marital status of a woman alters the order and manner of succession to her property. However, in the case of a male, marriage does not make any difference to the manner of inheritance to his property. Even in Muslim, Christian and Parsi personal laws, the blood relatives of a woman get precedence over her husband’s heirs. The core foundation of this discriminatory provision lies at the patriarchal societal notion that a woman does not have an existence independent of her husband and she belongs to her father’s family until marriage and after marriage she belongs to her husband’s family. Hence, this provision in a way also questions women’s right to absolute ownership of property and thereby stands in contravention of Section 14(1) of the same statute.
The inequality of succession rules between men and women under Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is as visible as the sun of the day. In the process of exploring the legislative intent of the statute, the court miserably failed to take into consideration the sacrosanct principle of “equality among equals” as enshrined under Article 15 of the Constitution of India and could not actualise the power given to the judiciary for serving ‘complete justice.’
Conclusion
Whenever a judicial pronouncement is delivered on matters of personal laws, another question with respect to the authority of the Judiciary to interfere with the personal laws arises. However, a single judge bench of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mamta Dinesh Vakil v. Bansi S. Wadhwa held that Section 15 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was liable to be set aside as the provision is violative of the principle of equality, one of the basic features of the Constitution of India. Through this verdict that came in 2012, the Hon’ble Court opined that there can be different laws for the believers of different religions but there can not be different laws for different sexes and hence, the Judiciary has the right to intervene in case of legislation that discriminates only on the basis of gender. In order to advance one more step towards bringing in gender equality in Hindu succession law, the recommendations of the 207th Law Commission Report, 2008 have to be implemented. The report suggests an equal distribution of property among matrimonial and natal heirs of a Hindu female who died intestate.
Authored by: Rajpratim Kakati
National Law University, Assam
Comments