Introduction
The Supreme Court of India has taken up a crucial constitutional and family law question that could significantly reshape inheritance rights in Kerala. The Court has agreed to examine whether the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975 is inconsistent with, or repugnant to, Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, which grants daughters equal coparcenary rights in ancestral property.
The issue arises from a Kerala High Court judgment which held that despite the statutory abolition of the joint family system in Kerala, daughters are entitled to equal shares in Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) property if the father died after the 2005 amendment came into force. The Supreme Court’s decision to issue notice signals the importance of the questions involved—touching upon federal supremacy, retrospective application of laws, vested rights, and gender justice in property law.
Factual Background of the Dispute
The case originates from a partition suit in which daughters claimed an equal share in their late father’s ancestral property. The son opposed the claim, arguing that in Kerala, the concept of a Hindu joint family and coparcenary had already been abolished by legislation in 1975. According to this argument, the property ceased to be joint family property decades before the 2005 amendment and stood converted into separate or self-acquired property.
The Kerala High Court rejected this contention and ruled in favour of the daughters. Challenging this decision, the son approached the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition, leading to the present proceedings.
Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975: A Radical State Reform
Kerala has historically taken a distinct approach to personal laws. The 1975 Abolition Act was enacted with the objective of dismantling traditional joint family structures, which were often seen as rigid and unequal.
Key features of the Act include:
- Complete abolition of the Hindu joint family system
- Removal of the birthright in ancestral property
- Deeming all joint family property to be partitioned by operation of law
- Conversion of ownership into tenancy-in-common, rather than coparcenary
As a result, unlike most other states, Kerala has not recognised coparcenary rights for decades. Property succession has largely operated on principles closer to individual ownership rather than collective family ownership.
Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005: Advancing Gender Equality
The 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act marked a watershed moment in Indian family law. By amending Section 6, Parliament conferred equal coparcenary rights on daughters by birth, placing them on the same footing as sons in Mitakshara joint families.
The amendment was widely celebrated as a major step towards gender justice, ensuring that daughters could no longer be excluded from ancestral property merely on the basis of sex. However, the amendment presupposes the existence of a joint family governed by Mitakshara law, an assumption that becomes legally complex in the context of Kerala.
Kerala High Court’s Reasoning
In its 2025 judgment, the Kerala High Court held that:
- Sections 3 and 4 of the 1975 State Act are repugnant to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.
- Once Parliament conferred equal coparcenary rights on daughters, State provisions extinguishing such rights could not continue to operate.
- Daughters of a Hindu who died after 20 December 2004 are entitled to equal shares in ancestral property.
The Court clarified that the ruling applies only to Mitakshara law cases, thereby limiting its scope but still substantially altering the legal position in Kerala.
Core Constitutional Issue: Repugnancy under Article 254
The heart of the dispute lies in Article 254 of the Constitution, which deals with conflicts between State and Central laws on subjects in the Concurrent List.
Arguments Supporting the High Court View
- Both laws operate in the Concurrent List, and there is a direct conflict.
- The Central law, being later in time, should prevail.
- Denying daughters coparcenary rights would defeat the purpose of the 2005 amendment.
- Gender equality mandates a purposive interpretation of succession laws.
Arguments Raised in the Special Leave Petition
- The 1975 Act is a special State legislation, whereas the Hindu Succession Act is general.
- The joint family system in Kerala was already extinguished, leaving nothing for Section 6 to operate upon.
- The 2005 amendment cannot be applied retrospectively to revive a legal institution abolished decades earlier.
- Vested and accrued rights under the State Act cannot be overridden without express legislative intent.
Supreme Court Proceedings So Far
A Bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice SVN Bhatti has issued notice on the SLP as well as on the interim prayer seeking a stay of the Kerala High Court judgment. The matter is returnable in four weeks.
While the Supreme Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits at this stage, the issuance of notice indicates that the Court considers the legal questions involved to be substantial and worthy of detailed examination.
Legal and Social Implications
The outcome of this case could have far-reaching consequences:
- Women’s Property Rights in Kerala
A ruling upholding the High Court judgment would significantly expand daughters’ inheritance rights, aligning Kerala with the broader national framework of gender equality. - Federal Structure and Legislative Competence
The case will clarify how far Parliament can go in overriding long-standing State-specific personal law reforms. - Doctrine of Vested Rights
The Court’s reasoning will shape future jurisprudence on whether extinguished rights can be revived through subsequent amendments. - Uniformity vs Diversity in Personal Laws
The decision may influence the balance between uniform application of succession laws and respect for regional legal variations.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s examination of the apparent conflict between the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975 and the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 represents a pivotal moment in Indian succession law. The case raises profound questions about gender justice, constitutional supremacy, retrospective legislation, and the limits of State autonomy.
Whichever way the Court ultimately decides, the judgment is likely to become a landmark precedent, shaping the future of inheritance law not only in Kerala but also across India where State-specific reforms intersect with central legislative mandates.
Also Read
