SC Declines to Strike Down Succession Rule, Advises Women to Protect Property Through Wills

The Supreme Court in Snidha Mehra v. Union of India appealed to all women (especially Hindu women who may leave behind property) to make a will so that their assets are distributed according to their wishes and to avoid disputes between their parents and in-laws after their death.

The bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan highlighted that many Hindu women fall within Section 15(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which contains the rules of inheritance when a woman dies intestate. The Court noted that making a will under Section 30 of the Act, read with the Indian Succession Act, can prevent unnecessary litigation within families.

The Court said it was making this appeal in the interest of women across the country—particularly Hindu women—so that their self-acquired properties, earnings, and other assets are inherited as per their intention.

Court declines to decide challenge to Section 15(1)(b)

The bench refused to rule on the constitutional validity of Section 15(1)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act in a PIL filed by a young lawyer. The Court left the issue open to be decided in an appropriate case by affected parties.

Section 15(1)(b) says that if a Hindu woman dies without a will, without children or husband, her property will pass first to the heirs of her husband. Under Section 15(1)(c), her parents inherit only if there are no heirs on the husband’s side.

Pre-litigation mediation made mandatory

The Court issued an important direction:
When a Hindu woman dies intestate and her parents or their heirs claim a share in her property under Sections 15(1)(c), (d), or (e), and when Section 15(2) does not apply, the parties must first undergo pre-litigation mediation before filing a case in court.

Any settlement reached during this mediation will be treated as a decree of the court.

The Court instructed mediation centre directors and legal services authorities at the State, district, and taluka level to accept such applications.

Arguments before the Court

The petitioner had argued that Section 15(1)(b) is discriminatory because it prioritises the husband’s family over the woman’s own parents, even when she may have been supported and educated by them.

It was also argued that the law does not account for the fact that modern Hindu women often earn, invest, and acquire their own property.

The Union Government opposed the PIL, stating that such issues must be raised by affected parties, not by advocates. It submitted that Section 15 was drafted on a scientific basis in 1956 and that at that time it may not have been common for women to own self-acquired property. The Government also stressed that Section 30 allows Hindu women to make wills, and therefore, succession rules apply only in cases where no will exists.

Court’s observations

The Court acknowledged that in many cases, even distant relatives on the husband’s side may inherit the woman’s property, while her own parents may be left out, which can cause resentment in the maternal family.

The bench noted that social conditions have changed drastically since 1956. Due to greater access to education, employment, and entrepreneurship, women today often hold substantial self-acquired property, and any law ignoring this reality may lead to emotional and legal conflict.

However, the Court refrained from expressing any final view on the constitutional validity of the provision and left the question open.

Final direction

The Court reiterated its strong advice to all women—especially Hindu women—to make a will to ensure clarity and avoid disputes after their death. It also clarified that any affected party is free to challenge Section 15(1)(b) in the future if mediation or other dispute-resolution mechanisms fail.

Case: Snidha Mehra v. Union of India
Case No.: W.P.(C) 732/2020