This case involved two testamentary suits regarding the letters of administration and probate of the Will of a deceased Hindu who died leaving distant heirs. Amongst other issues, both suits challenged the constitutionality of Section 8 and Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act which deal with the intestate succession of a male and female Hindu respectively. The suits claim that the provisions are unreasonable and gender discriminatory as they give preference to the father’s relatives over the mother’s relatives.
Under section 8, in Class I heirs of a male Hindu, there is no discrimination except the exclusion of father from the list. The inclusion of the widow and mother is, in fact, furthering substantive equality given the inequality of property ownership. However, discrimination exists in distant heirs in Class II heirs. Father’s father and father’s mother in item V take precedence over mother’s father and mother’s mother in item VIII. Similarly, father’s brother and father’s sister in item VII take precedence over mother’s brother and mother’s sister in item IX. The patriarchal organisation of family amongst Hindus is used to justify the priority of paternal ties over maternal ones.
Under Section 15, the heirs of the husband are given preference over the mother and father and other heirs of the deceased female in case of a married Hindu female dying intestate and heirs of the father before the heirs of the mother. Both these constitute gender discrimination and while some parity is maintained in case of Class I heirs of a Hindu male as the listed female heirs succeed equally and along with male heirs without discrimination, ‘her own succession is riddled with discrimination only on the ground of sex.’ The Court held the provisions to be discriminatory and violating the constitutional guarantee of equality as it ‘left untouched perhaps the last discriminatory corner of the Hindu Society which has otherwise come of age and which would have to be looked upon as wanting in an equal society’. Thus, Sections 8 (b), (c), and (d) of Hindu Succession Act as also Section 15(1) of Act were declared unreasonable, discriminatory, and hence ultra vires Article 15(1) of the Constitution.
