SC grants four weeks' time to Centre for reply on plea on gender discrimination in Hindu succession law

New Delhi [India], April 5 (ANI): The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted four weeks more time to the Centre to file a reply on a petition on gender discrimination in Hindu succession law.
The matter was heard by a bench headed by Justice DY Chandrachud. The Court was hearing the petition filed by Kamal Anant Khopkar, who is represented by lawyers Mrunal Dattatraya Buva and Dhairyashil Salunkhe. The petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of sections 15 and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The special leave petition was filed against the order of the Mumbai High Court.
Succession laws for Hindu women are governed by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Section 14 of this Act clarifies that a Hindu woman is the absolute owner of her property. According to the petition, Sections 15 and 16 give the rules of inheritance and the order of succession.
"The relevant provisions of this Act do not consider a Hindu woman to be an independent person capable of transferring her property to her blood relatives. Pursuant to Section 14 of the Hindu Inheritance Act, 1956, any property in her possession is said to belong entirely to a Hindu woman," the petitioner said.
However, discrimination in these legal provisions is based solely on gender and not on family ties. To test the feasibility of the dispute, the idea that under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the
inheritance is kept in male lineage scheme to keep the property in the family, is irrational, otherwise Hindu man's property would not be inherited by daughters, sisters 'sons and sisters' daughters, as they marry into other people's homes, the petitioner said.
The petitioner said that the only basis for this classification is gender. Section 15 and Section 16 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 are highly discriminatory. Her own property is not inherited by her original heirs. These sections, therefore, violate the scheme of the Indian Constitution and are therefore unconstitutional, the petitioner said. (ANI)