Supreme Court Seeks Clarity on Women’s Property Rights
Last Updated on December 11, 2024 by Amit Patra
In what could be a seminal attempt at rewriting property inheritance for Hindu women, the Supreme Court has referred a complex legal question to a larger bench, exposing deep-seated inconsistencies in the interpretation of the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act relating to female property ownership.
The case is based on an intricate legal issue related to property rights that have traditionally remained covered under a judicial ambiguity. Essentially, it all boils down to the single issue of whether Hindu women possess absolute ownership over the inherited or transferred properties, or whether their rights are circumscribed.
Two conflicting streams of judicial decisions have woven a legal maze. One stream, led by the landmark judgment in the case of V. Tulasamma in 1977, holds unequivocally that women possess absolute ownership over property as Section 14(1) accorded full protection. On the other hand, another strain of judicial decisions, represented by a case like Sadhu Singh (2006), seems to interpret the law as more restrictive, suggesting that rights to property for women depend upon the circumstances of acquisition.
A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta said these conflicting interpretations need an urgent resolution. Essentially, the contest is between Sections 14(1) and 14(2) of the Act, which, together, define the extent of ownership over property by a Hindu woman.
The original case was one of property that was transferred through a will and which the wife sold. The sale was challenged on the ground that the wife did not have absolute ownership, by the legal heirs of the original testator.
Lower courts ruled in favor of the wife’s absolute ownership, based on the Tulasamma principle. The intervention by the High Court in support of a more restrictive operation led to the current reference by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has referred the issue to a larger bench to provide definite judicial interpretation on these critical sections. “The bench is attempting to harmonize apparently conflicting judgments and lay down a fair, uniform principle on which a woman’s right to property shall be determined.
This referral is more than a mere legal technicality; it is a possible watershed moment in the advancement of women’s property rights in India. The judgment could have wide ramifications on inheritance practices, property transfers, and the larger canvas of gender equity in property ownership.
Legal experts and women’s activists are awaiting the verdict of a larger bench, as this might prove to be a landmark order that can change the property inheritance scenario for Hindu women all over the country.
