Supreme Court Urges Hindu Women to Execute Wills: Key Legal Issues, Statutory Framework, and Judicial Reasoning

November 19, 2025

Introduction: A Significant Advisory from the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India has issued an important advisory urging all Hindu women to execute wills for their self-acquired and other properties to prevent family disputes and unintended devolution of assets. This observation came while the Court refused to strike down Section 15(1)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which prioritises the heirs of a deceased woman's husband over her own parents when she dies intestate and without surviving spouse or children.

The bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan emphasized that increasing litigation and emotional distress arising from succession disputes make it necessary for women to secure their property rights through testamentary planning.

Background: The Controversy Around Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act

Section 15(1)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 provides the order of succession for property owned by a Hindu woman dying intestate. The statutory scheme places the husband’s heirs above her own parents, even for her self-acquired assets.

This issue arose in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a practising advocate challenging the constitutional validity of Section 15(1)(b), arguing that:

modern Indian women increasingly possess substantial self-acquired property,
the legislation arbitrarily favours the husband’s heirs,
the provision discriminates against the woman’s natal family.

However, the Supreme Court declined to entertain the PIL, holding that such a challenge must come from an affected party, not a general petitioner.

Court’s Advisory: Hindu Women Should Execute Wills

The bench made an explicit appeal to Hindu women:

“We appeal to all women, and particularly Hindu women under Section 15(1), to take immediate steps to make a testament or will. This is to avoid further litigation and ensure that their properties devolve according to their wishes.”

The Court observed that recurring disputes and the emotional distress caused when a woman’s property bypasses her parents justified the need for proactive estate planning.

Court Declines to Strike Down Section 15(1)(b)

Although the petition argued that Section 15(1)(b) violates constitutional principles of equality under Articles 14 and 15, the Court refused to adjudicate on the issue for procedural reasons.

The Court held:

A practising advocate cannot challenge the provision without being directly affected.
The constitutional validity must be considered in an appropriate factual context.
Earlier constitutional concerns regarding Sections 15 and 16 had already been noted by the same bench during a hearing on September 24.

The Court therefore left the question of constitutionality open for a future appropriate case.

Government’s Stand: Legislative Scheme is Based on “Scientific Design”

Appearing for the Central Government, Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj defended the legislative framework by arguing:

The 1956 Parliament may not have anticipated women owning substantial self-acquired property.
Yet, the Act already provides a remedy through Section 30, which allows women to freely bequeath their property by will.
Therefore, the scheme is not arbitrary but grounded in social and legislative logic.

Mandatory Mediation Before Adjudication

In an important procedural directive, the Court ordered that:

Whenever parents or their heirs claim property under Section 15 after the death of a Hindu woman intestate,
The parties must undergo pre-litigation mediation before approaching courts.

Any settlement reached through mediation would be treated as a decree of the court. Mediation centres and legal services authorities at all levels (State, district, taluka) were instructed to facilitate such applications.

Socio-Legal Context: Women’s Rising Economic Independence

The bench acknowledged that India’s socio-economic landscape has transformed since 1956. Women today are:

educated,
employed,
entrepreneurial,
financially independent,
primary owners of self-acquired property.

Justice Nagarathna stated that while the legislative framework assumed limited ownership of assets by women, the reality has changed significantly. Therefore, issues arising from devolution of a woman's property must be addressed sensitively.

Previous Judicial Position: September 24 Observations

Two months earlier, on September 24, the same bench cautioned that challenges to Sections 15 and 16 must be approached with restraint. The Court had observed:

Hindu family structures should not be disrupted merely because of difficult fact situations.
Inheritance laws are historically tied to customs such as gotra, marital obligations, and familial maintenance.
The 2005 amendments granting daughters coparcenary rights had sometimes created discord within families, illustrating the need for balanced reform.

Arguments by Senior Advocates: Why Section 15(1)(b) Is Discriminatory

Senior advocates contended that Section 15(1)(b) is discriminatory because:

It elevates the husband’s heirs over the woman’s own parents even for her self-acquired property.
If Parliament intended to differentiate between properties inherited from parents or in-laws (as per Section 15(2)),
There is no justification for excluding self-acquired property from similar treatment.

These arguments highlighted the inequity faced by parents and siblings who lose access to a woman's estate due to the statutory order of succession.

Statutes Involved

Hindu Succession Act, 1956
- Section 15(1)(b): Order of succession for intestate Hindu women.
- Section 15(2): Special rules for property inherited from parents or in-laws.
- Section 16: Rules for distribution among heirs.
- Section 30: Testamentary succession (right to execute will).
Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987
- Provides framework for mediation and pre-litigation settlement.

Constitutional Provisions Relevant

Article 14: Equality before law; challenge to discriminatory succession rules.
Article 15(1): Prohibition of discrimination based on sex.
Article 15(3): Permits special laws for women; relevant for balancing protective measures.
Article 21: Right to dignity, autonomy, and property management.
Article 300A: No person shall be deprived of property except by authority of law.

Judicial Precedents Relevant

Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020): Expanded daughters' coparcenary rights.
Ganduri Koteshwaramma v. Chakiri Yanadi (2011): Recognized equal rights of daughters in joint family property.
Danamma v. Amar (2018): Affirmed daughter’s rights irrespective of father's death date.
Om Prakash v. Radhacharan (2009): Devolution rules for property inherited by women.

These cases indicate the judiciary’s evolving stance towards gender-equal property rights.

Conclusion: A Critical Advisory for Women’s Property Autonomy

The Supreme Court’s latest observations underscore an important reality:

Legislative structures may not evolve as quickly as society does.
Women’s increasing ownership of assets requires greater legal protection.
Execution of wills is the most immediate and effective tool to avoid disputes.

While the Court has avoided ruling on the constitutional validity of Section 15(1)(b), its advisory signals a growing recognition of the need to realign personal succession laws with contemporary constitutional values.