The Delhi High Court ruled recently that a woman’s entitlement to be the Karta (head) of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) is unaffected by the legislative or traditional Hindu law. The decision maintained a historic decision rendered by a lone judge in 2016 that had expanded the interpretation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, putting women’s inheritance rights on par with men’s.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a former US Supreme Court justice, was cited in the most recent ruling by a bench of justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna to emphasise that “real change happens one step at a time.” In a recent ruling, the high court emphasised that “a woman’s right to be a karta is in no way limited by the legislature or by traditional Hindu law.”
Furthermore, one cannot use societal views as justification for rejecting a privilege that the legislature specifically granted.
The court noted: “To say that a woman can be a coparcener but not a karta would be giving an interpretation that would not only be anomalous but also against the stated object of the introduction of an amendment.” The court cited a 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act that granted women equal rights to property.
It took note that all of his sons had died, and he then named a woman, Sujata, the family patriarch’s granddaughter, as Karta. The argument started between the grandsons, who didn’t want Sujata to be recognised as a karta. The opposition to Sujata’s candidature, according to the court, was based on “myriad hypotheses justifying why it would be incorrect for a woman to become a karta from a societal standpoint.”
“Any culture or practice that is ingrained in society is bound to face some apprehension and resistance by society when systemic changes are made to it,” the court stated, dismissing one of the grandsons’ complaints. However, with time, it turns into an instrument for social change.
“The test of popular acceptance does not furnish a valid basis to disregard statutory rights that are conferred with the sanctity of constitutional protection,” it said.
The assertion that a female karta’s husband would have some indirect influence over the operations of her father’s family’s HUF is, the court continued, “just a local perspective.”
Men and women were historically equal at birth, the bench added, but over time, “with the advancement of civilization and the hierarchical division of society, women have been pigeonholed according to gender roles, which progressed into an act of prelation that has relegated them to a secondary position in society.”
Laws were brought in to “overcome this bigotry and free women from the shackles of such specious fetters devised by mankind,” lamenting that the once egalitarian society “became a breeding ground for chauvinism and discrimination in the form of sati, child marriage, sexual harassment, domestic violence, dowry harassment, and such disparages.”
Historically equal at birth, the bench added, but over time, “with the advancement of civilization and the hierarchical division of society, women have been pigeonholed according to gender roles, which progressed into an act of prelation that has relegated them to a secondary position in society.”
Laws were brought in to “overcome this bigotry and free women from the shackles of such specious fetters devised by mankind,” lamenting that the once egalitarian society “became a breeding ground for chauvinism and discrimination in the form of sati, child marriage, sexual harassment, domestic violence, dowry harassment, and such disparages.”
