Equal rights for daughters

The Supreme Court verdict acknowledging equal rights to daughters on a par with sons as coparceners or equal inheritors in a Hindu family is welcome. The verdict does away with the last vestige of a discriminatory practice that continued despite the 2005 amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. There are two main schools of law followed by Hindus — Mitakshara and Dayabhaga. While Mitakshara School is followed in most parts of India, Dayabhaga School is confined to Bengal. Certain areas in South India are governed by Marumakkatayam, Aliyasantana, and Nambudiri systems of law. Notwithstanding its discriminatory nature, the original Section 6 of the Act was, in fact, a progressive provision to start with, given the fact that women did not have a share in the coparcenary property in the 1950s, and on the demise of an inheritor, the share of the deceased was passed on to his male heirs.

The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, made inroads into the male-dominated system. Though women didn’t get equal rights in property, the law made it possible for them to inherit property. While the rest of India continued with the discriminatory practice, some states such as Kerala, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka amended the law, giving equal rights to daughters. It was in this light that Parliament amended the Act in 2005 to give equal rights to daughters. But due to conflicting verdicts delivered by courts on retrospectivity of the amendment, daughters continued to be discriminated against.

Maintaining that daughters cannot be deprived of their right to equality, the Supreme Court has now ruled that the 2005 amendment would be applicable to them, irrespective of whether they were born before or after it. Most of these laws are from the pre-Constitution era, when right to equality was not a fundamental right. Post-Constitution India must strive to achieve the constitutional objective of equality. While Hindu personal laws have been amended several times to make them compatible with constitutional provisions and principles, there is a need for similar changes in personal laws of all other communities. This calls for legislative intervention.