Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, lays down General rules of succession in the case of

Hindu female. It places husbands in class I of successors and mothers in class II of successors. In the
present case, the same has been done where Dr. Rajeev claimed the property of Dr. Rukmani, in the
capacity of being her husband and a writ petition was filed by Sharada Devi, the mother of Dr.
Rukmani, challenging the constitutional validity of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956,
which gives Dr. Rajeev the right to do so.

Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, lays down General rules of succession in the case of
Hindu male. It places Mothers in class I of successors and Fathers in class II of successors. In the
present case, property of Mr. Arun was claimed by Mrs. Vaishnavi, in her capacity of her being the
mother, due to which a writ petition was filed by Mr. Hemant challenging the constitution validity of
Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which gives Mrs. Vaishnavi the right to do so.

Violation of Article 14 and 15

In Masilamani Mudaiar v Idol of Sri Swaminatha swami Thirukoil, the Supreme Court held that
personal laws, when they contravene the Constitution, should be held void to the extent of that
contravention. The three-judge bench stated that the basic structure of the Constitution propagates
notions of equality of status and opportunity. The personal laws discriminating against women are
repugnant to the ideas of equality.

The case of Mamta Dinesh Vakil v. Bansi S. Wadhwa is a watershed judgment towards introducing
reforms in the female intestate succession laws among Hindus. In this case, the discriminatory
nature of section 8 and 15 of the Hindu succession act was identified by the Supreme Court and
constitutional principles of equality as enshrined in Article 15 was upheld. The sections were
declared ultra vires of the scheme of the Constitution and hence invalid.

The 174th Report of Law Commission of India stated that “The provision of section 15(2) of HSA is
indicative again of a tilt towards the male... These provisions depict that property continues to be
inherited through the male line from which it came either back to her father’s family or back to her
husband’s family.” The same has been done in the case of Sharada Devi, where she has been made
devoid of her right to claim property of her daughter because of her gender, and Dr. Rajeev has been
given the right to inherit the property, even after he had deserted his wife.

In Saroja Chandrashekhar and Ors vs The Union of India and Ors (MANU/TN/1905/2015), the High
Court of Madras has conceded that Section 15 of the HSA is unfair to women, and that it was drafted
without envisaging the possibility that women could acquire their own property. The Court also
concedes that there is no good reason to prefer the husband’s heirs to an intestate woman’s own
parents.

The 207th Report of Law Commission of India recognised that there is a strong case to recognise
self-acquired property of women, and stated that the current method of distribution is arbitrary and
discriminatory in nature.

In the case of Dr.V.Sridevi vs Dr.C.S.Mani it was held by the hon’ble Court that sections 8(b), (c) and
(d) r/w the Class II of the Schedule of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA) as also section 15(1) of
this Act are unreasonable as discriminatory and, therefore, unconstitutional and ultra vires as being
violative of Article 15(1) of the Constitution of India, the same has happened in the present case
where discriminatory laws have taken the right of a mother and a father to inherit the property
which is rightfully there.
Doctrine of harmonious construction

Section 15

In the case of East India hotels ltd. V. Union of India (2001) It was held by vthe hon’ble court that
that an Act is to be read as a whole, the different provisions have to be harmonized and the effect to
be given to all of them. This clearly implies that the part of the statutes which is inconsistent with
statute should be declared void.

In the case of Nathi Devi v. Radha Devi Gupta the Apex Court held that, The interpretation function
of the Court is to discover the true legislative intent, it is trite that in interpreting a statute the Court
must, if the words are clear, plain, unambiguous and reasonably susceptible to only one meaning,
give to the words that meaning, irrespective of the consequences.

In the case of Sonubhai Yeshwant Jadhav v. Bala Govinda Yadav, the court held that it noted that the
source-based succession provisions under Section 15(2) reduce a woman’s rights in a property to a
mere life-interest. This goes squarely against the legislative intent of Section 14(1) which sought to
grant women absolute rights over the property they owned.

If section 15(2) is going against the legislative intent section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession act then it
must be struck down so that a harmonious situation can be achieved between the provision of the
statutes.

International law

Article 51, has to be read along with Article 253 of the Constitution. If the parliament has made any
legislation which is in conflict with the international law, then Indian Courts are bound to give effect
to the Indian Law, rather than the international law. However, in the absence of a contrary
legislation, municipal courts in India would respect the rules of international law.

Removing gender discrimination in property-related legislation is one of the core requirements

under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. India
became a signatory to this convention in 1980, and the Parliament ratified it in 1993. The purpose of
this treaty was to acknowledge that there exists widespread discrimination against women, and to
get signatories to commit to take all possible measures to end this discrimination.

The present case clearly shows that the provisions of Hindu succession act in question, violates
Article 2(Policy Measures), 5(Sex Role Stereotyping and Prejudice), 15(Law) and 16(Marriage
and Family Life) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against
Women and thus should be declared void.

The HSA discriminates against women has been acknowledged by various arms/officials of the
government. For instance, the Report of the Hindu Law Committee report acknowledges that
women have a lower socio-economic status as compared to men, and that the customary Hindu
Laws like the Hindu succession act perpetuate this discrimination.

The Supreme Court has in multiple cases ruled that the legislature, administration and judiciary have
an obligation to give due regard to India’s international commitments under treaties such as the
CEDAW. Some common instances of this can be Madhu Kishwar & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors and
Githa Hariharan and Ors. vs. Reserve Bank of India and Ors.
Article 15

Article 15 of the Indian Constitution provides in mandatory terms that no discrimination can be
made based on sex, and special provisions can be made in favour of women as they are a vulnerable
section of society.

The Hindu Succession Act nowhere defines transgenders within its scheme and prescribes that heir
can only be male or female persons. The hon’ble court in the case of National Legal Services
Authority v. Union of India, brought into light that transgender people recognise themselves as
females while claiming inheritance of the property rights which is a violation of Article 15 of the
Indian Constitution that prohibits discrimination on grounds of sex.

The hon’ble court in the case of Naz Foundation v. NCT of Delhi stated that, “sexual orientation is a
ground analogous to sex and that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is not permitted
by Article 15.”

Hindu law, on the whole, only recognises the paradigm of binary genders of male and female, based
on a person’s sex assigned by birth, including the law relating to marriage, adoption, inheritance,
succession. Non-recognition of Transgender’s identity in various legislations denies them equal
protection of the law, and they face widespread discrimination 1.

Article 253 of the Constitution of India states that the Parliament has the power to make any law for
the whole or any part of the territory of India for implementing any treaty, agreement or
convention.

1
MEADOW, TEY. “‘A ROSE IS A ROSE’: On Producing Legal Gender Classifications.” Gender and Society, vol. 24,
no. 6, Sage Publications, Inc., 2010, pp. 814–37, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25789908.