Ankur Lal Advocate

+9192160 17007

[email protected]

Facebook-f Twitter Instagram Linkedin

lawfirm

Landmark Judgments on Women’s Property Rights in India

Leave a Comment / Legal Article / By

Women’s property rights have long been a contentious issue in India, steeped in centuries of social, cultural, and legal discrimination. However, the Indian judiciary has increasingly played a pivotal role in reshaping the landscape of these rights, ensuring greater equality and justice. This article delves into some of the most significant recent judgments concerning women’s property rights, highlighting the evolution of legal interpretations and their implications under Indian law.   Historical Context: Women’s Property Rights in India The foundation of women’s property rights in India is deeply rooted in traditional Hindu laws, where property rights were primarily patriarchal. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, was a landmark piece of legislation that sought to provide women with inheritance rights. However, it initially excluded daughters from inheriting ancestral property, which was a significant point of contention. The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, was a watershed moment, as it granted daughters equal rights in ancestral property, akin to sons. This amendment was a major step towards gender equality in property rights. Nevertheless, the application and interpretation of this law led to numerous legal battles, resulting in a series of landmark judgments. Landmark Judgments and Their Implications Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020) Case Overview: The Supreme Court of India, in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020), delivered a landmark judgment that resolved a long-standing ambiguity concerning the rights of daughters to coparcenary property under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. Judgment: The Court held that daughters have equal coparcenary rights in Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) property by birth, regardless of whether their father was alive at the time of the 2005 amendment. This judgment overruled previous contradictory judgments, particularly the Prakash v. Phulavati (2016) case, which stated that the amendment applied only if the father was alive on the date of the amendment. Implications: This decision significantly strengthened women’s property rights by affirming that daughters have the same rights as sons in ancestral property. It clarified that these rights are by birth, not contingent on the father’s survival post-2005, ensuring equal treatment of daughters in property matters. Danamma @ Suman Surpur v. Amar (2018) Case Overview: Another significant judgment came in Danamma @ Suman Surpur v. Amar (2018), where the Supreme Court addressed the rights of daughters in cases where the father had passed away before the 2005 amendment. Judgment: The Court ruled that daughters are entitled to an equal share of ancestral property even if their father had died before the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 came into effect. This ruling was seen as progressive, reinforcing the principle of gender equality in property rights. Implications: This judgment played a crucial role in reinforcing that the 2005 amendment has a retrospective effect, meaning that daughters can claim their share in ancestral property irrespective of when their father died. This ruling eliminated the uncertainties surrounding the temporal application of the amendment. Arunachala Gounder v. Ponnusamy (2022) Case Overview: The case of Arunachala Gounder v. Ponnusamy (2022) addressed the rights of a daughter to inherit her father’s self-acquired property. Judgment: The Supreme Court held that a daughter is entitled to inherit her father’s self-acquired property if the father died intestate (without leaving a will). This ruling emphasized that a daughter’s right to her father’s property is not just limited to ancestral property but extends to self- acquired property as well. Implications: This judgment broadened the scope of women’s inheritance rights, making it clear that daughters are legitimate heirs to both ancestral and self-acquired properties of their parents, provided there is no will specifying otherwise. It strengthened the legal framework for women’s property rights beyond the confines of ancestral property.   Analysis of Indian Laws Pertaining to Women’s Property Rights The key legislative framework governing women’s property rights in India is primarily based on the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and its 2005 amendment. Below is an analysis of how these laws interact with the recent judgments: a. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 Initially, the Act granted women limited inheritance rights. Daughters were not considered coparceners and had no right to ancestral property. Women’s rights were mostly limited to personal property, often received as a gift or dowry. b. Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 The 2005 amendment revolutionized the Act by granting daughters equal rights as sons in ancestral property. It recognized daughters as coparceners from birth, enabling them to demand partition and inherit property equally. The amendment aimed to dismantle the patriarchal inheritance system, promoting gender equality. c. Impact of Recent Judgments on Indian Laws The Supreme Court’s recent judgments, particularly in Vineeta Sharma and Danamma @ Suman Surpur, have significantly impacted the interpretation of the 2005 amendment. By ruling that daughters’ rights are by birth and not contingent on the father’s death post-amendment, the Court has effectively enhanced the scope of the amendment, ensuring its retrospective application. This interpretation aligns with the constitutional mandate of equality and non-discrimination on the basis of gender. Challenges and Future Directions Despite the progressive judgments and legal amendments, challenges remain in the practical enforcement of women’s property rights in India. Cultural and societal norms often hinder women from asserting their legal rights. There is also a lack of awareness among women, particularly in rural areas, about their rights. Additionally, legal battles over property can be prolonged and costly, discouraging women from pursuing their rightful claims. The judiciary and the legal system need to address these challenges by ensuring faster resolution of property disputes and spreading awareness about women’s rights. Future Directions Legal Reforms: Further legal reforms may be necessary to remove any remaining ambiguities in property laws. Laws must be periodically reviewed to ensure they reflect the changing social dynamics and promote gender justice. Awareness Campaigns: Government and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) should conduct awareness campaigns to educate women about their property rights. Simplification of Legal Procedures: Simplifying legal procedures related to property disputes can make it easier for women to claim their rights. This could include establishing fast-track courts for property disputes involving women. Conclusion The recent landmark judgments on …

Landmark Judgments on Women’s Property Rights in India Read More »

Constitutionality Of The Electoral Bonds

Leave a Comment / Legal Article / By

The Electoral Bond Scheme of 2018, was introduced by the Ministry of Finance on January 02, 2018, provided for donations to political parties through issuance of electoral bonds using machinery of the State Bank of India (“SBI”). An electoral bond is like a promissory note. It is a bearer instrument payable to the bearer on demand. Unlike a promissory note, which contains the details of the payer and payee, an electoral bond has no information on the parties in the transaction at all, providing complete anonymity and confidentiality to the parties. It has inserted a striking feature that it would not carry the name or any other information of the donor, thereby making the donation anonymous. It could be encashed by an eligible political party through a bank account with an authorised bank. SBI had been authorised to issue and encash bonds under the Electoral Bond Scheme and there was no limit to the number of bonds that a person or company could purchase. However, the constitutionality of the said scheme was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court at multiple instances but it was finally put on record before the 5 Judge constitutional bench comprising of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra in the case of Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors. challenging the amendments in the Finance Act, 2017, which opened the path for the Electoral Bond Scheme, on the grounds that the anonymity associated with the issuance of electoral bonds weakens the transparency in political funding and invades upon the voter’s right to information. However, a political party eligible to run campaigns must register under Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, to receive electoral bonds. It will have a life of only 15 days, during which it can be used to make donations to political parties. The two crucial questions before the hon’ble constitutional bench was; a) whether the non- disclosure of information on voluntary contributions to political parties under the Electoral Bond Scheme and the amendments to Section 29C of the Representation of People Act, Section 182(3) of the Companies Act and Section 13A (b) of the Income Tax Act were violative of the Right to Information of citizens under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India; and b) whether unlimited corporate funding to political parties, as envisaged by the amendment to Section 182 (1) of the Companies Act infringes the principle of free and fair elections and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The constitution bench unanimously held that the said scheme is unconstitutional and violative of the citizens right to information under article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The Bench noted that despite constitutional measures, there is great political inequality in India. This inequality is driven by money. As a result, people with deep pockets influenced political decisions. “Economic inequality”, the Chief Justice of India wrote, “leads to differing levels of political engagement because of the deep association between money and politics.” It gives large donors a “seat at the table” and allows them to influence policy. The voter, therefore, must have access to information to assess whether “a correlation between policy making and financial contributions exists”. The Bench relied on the proportionality test laid down in Modern Dental College & Research Centre v State of Madhya Pradesh (2016). In that case, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Court had held that a measure restricting a fundamental right must have a “legitimate goal”, it must be a “suitable means” of reaching that goal, it must create the least amount of restriction as possible, and must be balanced and not have “a disproportionate impact” on the right holder. The Scheme was proposed as a tool to curb black money. The Court held that “the purpose of curbing black money is not traceable to any of the grounds in Article 19(2),” which lists reasonable restrictions to Article 19. Even if it were to accept that curbing black money was a legitimate goal, the Court said, the Scheme would have to pass the second test of being a “suitable means” to achieve that goal. The Scheme would pass the test even if it was “one of the many methods” to achieve the goal or “only partially gives effect to the purpose.” Applying the “double proportionality standards”, the court said that the clause was unconstitutional as it did not balance the conflicting right to information of voters with contributors’ right to privacy regarding their political affiliations. The Ld. Chief Justice of India further held that the “unlimited contribution by companies to political parties is antithetical to free and fair elections because it allows certain persons/companies to wield their clout and resources to influence policy making.” Giving companies this “unrestrained influence” violates the value of “one person, one vote”. The Supreme Court ordered banks to forthwith stop issuing Electoral Bonds and that the State Bank of India (SBI) shall furnish the details of Electoral Bonds encashed by the political parties. The court said that SBI should submit the details to the Election Commission of India and ECI shall publish these details on the website. Hence, the scheme of 2018 allowing anonymous electoral bonds were held unconstitutional, by the Hon’ble High Court and The CJI while reading out his judgement said that the Supreme Court holds that anonymous electoral bonds are violative of Right to Information and Article 19(1)(a) and issuance of fresh bond was prohibited. The Supreme Court said that information about corporate contributors through Electoral Bonds must be disclosed as the donations by companies are purely for quid pro quo purposes. The court held that amendments in the Companies Act permitting unlimited political contributions by companies is arbitrary and unconstitutional. The Supreme Court said infringement of the Right to Information is not justified for the purpose of curbing black money.