Top News Headlines 6th April 2022: Apex Court Seeks Centre’s Response To Plea Challenging Section 15 Of Hindu Succession Act As Discriminatory Against Women

Apex Court Seeks Centre’s Response To Plea Challenging Section 15 Of Hindu Succession Act As Discriminatory Against Women

• The Hon’ble Supreme Court has on Wednesday sought Centre’s response in a plea challenging section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act (HSA) on the grounds on gender discrimination.
• The plea had reached the Apex Court via a Special Leave Petition filed in the year 2018 against the order of the Bombay HC in the matter which had rejected the mother’s caveat on the ground that she did not have a caveatable interest in the property of her deceased daughter during the lifetime of the spouse of the deceased.
• On January 31st, 2022 the Apex Court directed that the petition be listed before a three- Judge bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Bela M Trivedi. Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora has been appointed as amicus curiae in the case.
• Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act provides that if a female Hindu dies intestate, then her property will devolve on her sons and daughters and her husband, then upon the heirs of the husband, then upon her mother and father, and lastly upon the heirs of the father and then the mother. This stands in stark contrast with the succession in case of a male Hindu where his mother inherits along with his children and widow.
• The petition was filed by the mother of a deceased daughter, arguing that section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution. It has been argued that in the event that a Hindu Woman passes away without a will (intestate), Section 15 of HSA prioritises the heirs of the husband over the parents of the deceased woman for the purpose of inheritance. The woman’s husband, if alive at the time of her death, inherits the entire property by default, with no share left for the woman’s parents.
• Also, section 15(2) of the HSA states that the property of the woman dying intestate reverts to the source from whence it came, which means that if she inherits the property from her father, it goes back to him, and if she inherits the property from her father in law, then the property reverts to him. Further, even if the woman has inherited her property from her mother, it cannot devolve upon the mother, and goes to the father and his heirs. These rules of reversion do not apply in case of males. Section 8 of the HSA regulates the devolution of property in case of males and the property in this case does not revert to the source from whence it came.
• The Court had observed in 2019 that the Writ petition raises important issues of gender equality. Now we have to wait and see what the response of the Centre is going to be.

Free Speech And Sedition: True Progress Lies Through Agitation; Read What Justice Oka Has To Say

• Justice Oka, while delivering a talk on Saturday on the topic of ‘Vision of Independent India: Ranade, Tilak and Gokhale’ in a virtual event organised by “The Leaflet” said that the views expressed by Bal Gangadhar Tilak on free speech and sedition continue to be relevant now. He also said that Justice Ranade and Gopal Krishna Gokhale propagated liberal ideals and their views on economy and education are as relevant now as they were 75 years ago.
• Both Ranade and Gokhale were strong believers of the fact that societal reforms must take priority, even if those reforms were ushered through the British Government’s laws. An example which springs to mind here is the abolition of the despicable custom of Sati which was abolished by the Bengal Sati Regulation, 1829 passed during the regime of the Governor-General Lord William Bentinck.
• Justice Oka went on to mention the trial that Tilak had to face where he had defended himself and vociferously advocated his right to free speech. He said that a writer can do something more, not merely represent and express. When he said that the Government is going wrong, he has evidently said something that the government may not like, but that is not sedition. And if it were so, then there could be no progress at all. True progress lies through agitation. Tilak went on to say that if the real intention is to reform the government, then it is not sedition.
• Similar views were also expressed by Justice Rohinton Nariman in his speech on January 14, where he said that the time had come to completely do away with sedition laws and allow free speech so long as it does not exhort somebody to violence. It is also important to note that in 1962, the Apex Court itself had upheld the constitutional validity of the sedition laws enshrined in section 124A of IPC in the case of Kedarnath Singh vs State of Bihar.
• Justice Oka went on to say that Lokmanya was a firm believer in freedom of speech and expression. While facing his trials, he continuously fought for the freedom of the press and the freedom of speech and expression. What he pleaded in the second trial in the year 1908 is relevant now, after 114 years of his trial.
• Speaking about Justice Ranade, Justice Oka narrated an incident wherein Lokmanya Tilak wrote a very strongly worded article in his newspaper, criticising Justice Ranade, and many of his well wishers advised him to sue Tilak for defamation, to which Justice Ranade replied that Tilak was a great patriot who was fighting for the same cause as him, though their means might be different. If there were a legal battle between the two, the Britishers would take advantage of that. His response was most dignified and showed his love for the freedom of expression and human dignity.
• Justice Ranade was a firm believer of the idea that slowly but surely, the progress of liberal ideals would work their way into reforming our social customs.
• Justice Oka said that Lokmanya Tilak was described as the ‘Father of Indian Unrest’ by Sir Valentine Chirol and had to face two trials and imprisonments for sedition because of his writings in the newspaper Kesari. He spoke about the offence of sedition under section 124 A of IPC and said that expressing dissatisfaction against the British Government could in no way amount to sedition. He also said that the liberty enjoyed by the people of England should also be enjoyed by the people of India.
• Speaking about Gokhale, Justice Oka said that he had expressed concern that a very insignificant part of the budget was being used for the purposes of education and advocated the fact that the sense of responsibility for running democratic institutions can be acquired only via practical training and education.
• In conclusion, Justice Oka said that the reason that he had chosen to talk about this is that we as a Country seem to have forgotten about these three great men who had devoted their entire lives to serving the public. He also said that we should revisit more of such writings of such great men and we can learn so much from their work and their vision.