Supreme Court Cautions Against Demeaning Hindu Social Structure in Succession Law Debate

September 24, 2025

The Supreme Court of India has recently underlined a cautious approach while hearing challenges to provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, particularly sections 15 and 16, which govern the inheritance rights of Hindu women dying intestate.

The Court’s Observations

A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan stressed that while women’s rights are critical, reforms must not disrupt the Hindu social structure that has existed for thousands of years.

The judges noted that courts must not allow “hard facts” of individual cases to create “bad laws.”
Justice Nagarathna remarked: “Do not demean the structure of the Hindu society that we already have…We do not want by our judgment to break something which has been there for thousands of years.”

The bench reiterated that balance must be maintained between advancing women’s rights and preserving cultural traditions.

The Provisions Under Challenge

At the heart of the dispute are Sections 15 and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act:

For Hindu men: If a man dies intestate, his property devolves equally on his wife, children, and mother.
For Hindu women: If a woman dies intestate, her property goes to her children and husband first. If she dies issueless and without a husband, her husband’s heirs take precedence over her own parents and siblings.

This means even a woman’s self-acquired property may bypass her natal family in favour of her in-laws.

Concerns Over Gender Equality

The petitioners, represented by senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Menaka Guruswamy, argued that:

The provisions are exclusionary and discriminatory, treating women unequally.
Kapil Sibal asserted: “A woman is not a chattel anymore. She has to be treated equally.”
Guruswamy urged the court to focus on the statutory framework, not abstract notions of Hindu society.

The Centre, however, defended the provisions as “well-crafted,” arguing that the petitioners sought to “destroy the social structure.”

Court’s Past Stance and Amendments

In 2005, amendments granted daughters coparcenary rights in joint family property, but the bench noted this caused rifts within families.
Justice Nagarathna, in a 2024 hearing, had described the scheme as “scientific and logical”, emphasising that property from a woman’s parents reverts to them, while property from her in-laws devolves upon them.
The court clarified that hardship alone cannot make a law unconstitutional.

The Constitutional Question

The matter raises questions of gender equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. A bench led by Justice DY Chandrachud in 2019 had already acknowledged the issue as constitutionally significant.

Yet, the present bench signalled reluctance to strike down the law outright. Instead, it referred the parties to the Supreme Court’s mediation centre and fixed November 11 for the next hearing.

Balancing Tradition and Reform

The bench highlighted the need for gradual reform without destabilising established traditions:

Women’s inheritance rights must advance, but family stability and cultural frameworks must be respected.
The court warned that too sweeping a judgment could lead to social upheaval.
It left open the possibility of future deliberation, acknowledging both the progress made and the imbalances that remain in succession laws.

✅ Conclusion: The Supreme Court’s latest stance reflects India’s ongoing struggle to balance constitutional equality with cultural traditions. While petitioners call for reform to end discrimination, the judiciary is moving cautiously, ensuring that the drive for women’s rights does not inadvertently unravel the social fabric of Hindu society.