1. INTRODUCTION

India has witnessed significant economic advancement since gaining independence in 1947. However, there is a notable disparity in the distribution of this growth between men and women. The economic participation of women continues to be alarmingly limited. The patriarchal nature of the society has really affected the women in every aspect especially regarding customs and traditions of the society. Women have always been objectified and mistreated by the society. There is a dark shadow of gender biasness even in law. The Hindu law expressed is biasness in many aspects like property rights, divorce, religious practices (restrictions of women), guardianship and so on.

2. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

These incorporated various facets of gender discrimination against women across multiple dimensions. In an effort to address these gender issues and other conflicts within Hindu law, the Hindu Code Bills were enacted during the inaugural session of the first Lok Sabha (1955-56). These bills comprised the Hindu Marriage Act, Hindu Succession Act, Hindu Minority Act and Guardianship Act, and Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. They were the result of significant contributions from Dr B.R. Ambedkar and other members of the constituent assembly. While this marked a significant step forward in the empowerment of women under Hindu personal law, certain loopholes persisted, allowing for potential continued discrimination against women. Hindu Law was also expressing its gender bias in various aspects like divorce, property rights, and so on. Until 1955, Hindu Law was also arbitrarily interpreted through mere oral readings of sources such as the Vedas, Smritis, and Puranas. Hindu traditional texts can be categorized into Smritis and Srutis, with the Manusmriti dating back to the 5th century in the Gregorian calendar. Since its inception, this scripture has played a crucial role, profoundly shaping the structure and dynamics of Indian societies. For centuries, the Manusmriti has been regarded by nearly every Hindu as the ultimate guide for leading a morally upright life. In the colonial era, there were significant legal interventions aimed at reforming Hindu personal laws. [1]

3. ENACTMENTS INCLUDED

These interventions were enacted through various legislative measures, each addressing specific aspects of Hindu family and succession laws. Among these enactments were the Hindu Widow's Remarriage Act of 1856, the Hindu Inheritance (Removal of Disabilities) Act of 1928, the Hindu Gains of Learning Act of 1930, and the Hindu Womens Right to Property Act of 1937.[2]

The Hindu Womens Right to Property Act of 1937, introduced by Akhil Chandra Datt, was a notable legislative effort. However, it encountered public resistance and criticism. In response to concerns and objections, a non-official member suggested that the bill be referred to a select committee for further examination and consideration. Despite this recommendation, the proposal to send the bill to a select committee was later overruled or negated, and the legislation proceeded without undergoing additional scrutiny by the select committee. [1]

These legal interventions were part of broader efforts to modernize and reform Hindu personal laws during the colonial period, with the aim of addressing social issues, promoting gender equality, and bringing about changes in traditional practices that were perceived as outdated or discriminatory.

4. AMENTDEMNTS MADE

In several South Indian states, reforms regarding daughters' rights in Hindu joint family property occurred well before the UPA government proposed the 2005 amendment. Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, and Karnataka proactively amended the Hindu Succession Act (HSA) to grant coparcenary rights to daughters within their jurisdictions. [3] Notably, Kerala went beyond mere amendments and took an extra step by abolishing the entire concept of the Hindu Joint Family system. Specifically, Kerala enacted The Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act in 1975, which stood as an independent statute, separate from amendments to the HSA. Effective from December 1, 1976, this act abolished the Hindu Joint Family system governed by the Mitakshara Law. It stipulated that mere birth in a family would no longer automatically confer rights to the family property. Instead, every member holding coparcenary rights was entitled to a share in the property as if it were partitioned, establishing a tenancy-in-common system and replacing the traditional joint tenancy. Importantly, the act did not negate the right to maintenance, marriage, and funeral expenses for any family member. It also eliminated the pious obligation of a Hindu son and imposed liability on family members for debts contracted by the Karta.[1]

In Andhra Pradesh, an amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act was enacted in 1985. The state government recognized that excluding daughters from coparcenary ownership contradicted the essence and spirit of the Indian Constitution, which upholds equality as a fundamental right. This amendment aimed to rectify the gender disparity in property rights within the state.

The amendment sought to bring about a significant change in the traditional structure of Joint Hindu families governed by the Mitakshara Law, with a specific focus on addressing gender inequality. In these joint families, a son historically held the status of a coparcener by birth, entitling him to certain rights in the family property.[2]

The key provision of the amendment was to extend this coparcenary status to daughters as well. By virtue of being born into the family, a daughter would now acquire coparcenary rights, mirroring the rights traditionally granted to sons. This included the right to claim ownership of the family property through survivorship, which is the right to inherit a deceased coparcener's share without the need for a specific bequest.[2]

Crucially, the amendment emphasized equality between sons and daughters within the joint family structure. It aimed to eliminate the historical discrimination that daughters faced in terms of property rights. By subjecting daughters to similar liabilities and disabilities as sons, the amendment sought to create a more equitable framework, challenging the traditional gender norms embedded in property laws. Overall, the amendment marked a significant step towards gender justice and equal rights within the familial and property contexts, aligning with broader societal efforts to address historical gender disparities.[3]

The Maharastra Amendment was also framed in a similar nature as the Andhra Pradesh Amendment. By the Hindu Succession (Maharastra Amendment) Act, 1994. which amends daughters coparcenary rights similar to Andhra Pradesh. The State of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, using the same language as the previous state amendments by Maharastra and Andhra by the Hindu Succession (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1994 and Hindu Succession(Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989.

5. JUDGEMENTS

In Tulsamma v. Susha Reddy,[4] the Supreme Court shattered historical constraints on Hindu women's property rights imposed by ancient customs. The 1956 Act was deemed instrumental in establishing equality. The case involved a widow with limited property interest. The Court, going beyond statutory language, affirmed women's full ownership rights over any property, ensuring gender justice and challenging traditional norms.

In the legal matter of Savita Samvedi v/s Union of India, [5] the father, an employee of Indian Railways, requested accommodation for his married daughter before retirement due to her being the primary caregiver. The railways granted temporary residence but refused regularization after retirement, citing rules. Appealing to the Supreme Court, the appellants contested a circular allowing sons, but not married daughters, to regularize parental quarters. The Court found the circular discriminatory, violating constitutional principles, and affirmed the daughter's right to regularization as a railway employee. However, the judgment overlooked broader issues of gender discrimination, revealing a gap in addressing bias against women in the legal system. Nonetheless, the judiciary's stance against gender bias sets a precedent for future cases.[1]

The Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2005 changed this principle and ensured that daughters of a coparcener could also become coparceners in their own right, on par with a son. This amendment placed women on the same footing as a man with relation to the inheritance of property thereby uprooting gender bias from the law in a specific sense.

In the Prakash v. Phulavati case,[6] a division bench of the Supreme Court established two conditions for the application of the 2005 amendment. Firstly, a daughter cannot challenge a partition that occurred before December 20, 2004. Secondly, the amended section applies to a daughter only if her father was alive on the date the amendment took effect, which is September 9, 2005.[2]

On August 11, 2020, the Supreme Court, in Vineeti Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma,[7] set a landmark precedent by retroactively applying the 2005 Amendment. The ruling granted daughters in Hindu Undivided Families coparcenary rights through survivorship, regardless of their fathers' status when the amendment was enacted. This decision significantly impacted gender equality in familial structures, challenging historical disparities and reshaping inheritance laws. It marked a departure from colonial-era customs, emphasizing the paramount importance of contemporary gender equality in legal interpretations and safeguarding women's rights within familial property rights.[1]

Additionally, in the case of Mangammal v. T.B. Raju,[8] the court examined the Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989. This decision differed from the Danammal case and concluded that there is no explicit provision regarding the retrospective effect of the 2005 amendment, as advocated in the Prakash vs Phulavati case.[2]

6. CONCLUSION

In a society deeply rooted in patriarchal values, laws often align with male interests, necessitating a continuous push for reform to achieve gender justice. The journey of law reforms, spanning from the 1950s Hindu Code bills to the 2005 amendment, reflects attempts to address gender disparities. However, inherent ambiguities in the 2005 amendment have led to conflicting court opinions, exemplified in cases such as Prakash vs Phulavati and Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma.

The 2020 judgment aimed to bring stability by overturning previous decisions and establishing a more unified legal platform. Despite these efforts, the researcher argues that it falls short of achieving comprehensive gender equality. Lingering issues persist, requiring careful consideration from lawmakers, leaders, and the legal system.

The researcher underscores the importance of societal commitment to progressive change, regardless of the specific issues addressed. This emphasizes the necessity of a dynamic legal framework that can adapt to the evolving needs of society. In conclusion, the call is made for ongoing contributions to social progress, with a reminder that genuine gender equality necessitates a legal system that consistently evolves to meet the changing demands of society.

CITATIONS

[1] Tripti Singh,"Gender Justice In Hindu Succession", Legal Sevices India E- Journal

[2] Property Rights of Daughter In India: Post Supreme Court Ruling, 2022 available at, https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=75cc6bed-c424-47de-b17e-4715cb8b2872

[3] Edgar," A Long Journey Of Gender Justice: Property Rights of Hindu Daughters"Legal Services India E-Journal

[4] Tulsamma v. Sesha Reddy (1997), 1977 AIR 1977SCR(3) 261 1977 SCC (3) 99

[5] Savita Samvedi v/s Union of India (1996), 1996 SCC (2) 380 JT 1996 (1) 680 1996 SCALE (1)598

[6] Prakash v. Phulavati case(2013), Civil Appeal No.7217 of 2013

[7] Vineeti Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma (2020), available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/181862860/

[8] Mangammal v. T.B. Raju (2018), available at, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/70913397/