Photo by Arnaud Gillard on Unsplash
On November 19, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant advisory opinion that deserves serious contemplation from every Hindu woman in the country. The bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan made an explicit and urgent appeal to all women, particularly Hindu women, to execute wills to protect their property rights and avoid prolonged family litigation. This seemingly straightforward recommendation carries profound implications about how our legal system currently handles women's property rights and the persistent gaps within our succession laws.
The Court's appeal addresses a critical concern in the potential disputes that arise when women die without leaving a will, commonly referred to as dying intestate. While the appeal appears pragmatic on the surface, it inadvertently highlights a deeper structural problem in how India's personal laws treat women's inheritance and property ownership in the twenty-first century.
Understanding the Legal Challenge: Section 15(1) of the Hindu Succession Act
At the core of this issue lies Section 15(1)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which establishes a specific hierarchy of succession for Hindu women who die without making a will. The law stipulates that if a Hindu woman dies intestate without living children or a living husband, her property passes to the heirs of her husband rather than to her own parents or siblings. This arrangement fundamentally prioritises the husband's family over the woman's family in matters of inheritance.
The Court acknowledged this individuality, recognising that such provisions place the husband's family ahead of a woman's own parents and siblings when succession occurs. More critically, the Court noted that self-acquired properties, those earned through a woman's own education, employment, or entrepreneurship, would similarly devolve to the husband's heirs under current law. This reality has prompted justified concerns about whether women's hard-earned assets are being treated as extensions of family property rather than as individually owned resources.
Women's Economic Empowerment and the Old-fashioned Law
The Supreme Court itself observed that an important contemporary reality for women's education, employment, and entrepreneurship has expanded significantly, leading to their acquisition of substantial self-acquired property. This socio-economic transformation since 1956 has fundamentally altered the context in which succession laws operate. Women today are not economically dependent entities but independent earners and asset owners contributing meaningfully to national economic growth.
Yet the succession law remains largely unchanged from an era when women's property ownership was limited and their economic roles were constrained. The disconnect between the law and contemporary social reality creates the very litigation concerns that the Court seeks to prevent. When a woman's self-acquired property earned through her own efforts passes to her husband's family rather than to her parents or siblings, it creates emotional and legal challenges that the Court now seeks to mitigate through practical workarounds rather than legal reform.
The Supreme Court's Practical Response and Its Limitations
The Supreme Court's recommendation that women draft wills is undoubtedly practical advice. By creating a testamentary document, women can explicitly dictate how their property should be distributed, thereby avoiding the problematic provisions of Section 15(1). This represents a legitimate legal safeguard available to those who are aware of the law and have the means to seek legal counsel.
However, this solution while necessary, is fundamentally a temporary on a structural problem. It shifts the responsibility entirely to individual women to navigate and correct a legal framework that inherently disadvantages them. Rather than modifying a discriminatory law, the Court essentially advises women to work around it. This places the burden of protecting one's own interests on citizens rather than on the legal system itself.
The Court's reluctance to strike down the provision as unconstitutional, despite its arguably discriminatory nature, reveals the institutional hesitation to alter legal frameworks rooted in religious traditions. The bench expressed caution about breaking Hindu social structures that have existed for thousands of years, prioritising cultural continuity over contemporary gender justice.
Addressing the Broader Picture: Legislative Reform and Social Change
The real solution lies not merely in individual women executing wills but in comprehensive legislative reform that unequivocally guarantees gender equality in inheritance rights. The government, represented during the hearings, defended these provisions as well-crafted and socially and religiously significant. However, personal laws must evolve to reflect changing social realities and constitutional guarantees of equality.
A truly progressive legal framework would eliminate the hierarchy that places a husband's heirs above a woman's own family members. It would recognise that self-acquired property, in particular, represents a woman's personal achievement and should devolve according to her wishes or to her immediate family in the absence of a will, not automatically to her husband's heirs.
The Supreme Court's advisory also mentioned that families should pursue pre-litigation mediation in cases of intestate succession disputes. While mediation is valuable, it should not be a substitute for clear, equitable legal provisions that prevent such disputes from arising in the first place.
The Supreme Court's appeal for women to draft wills is a necessary, immediate protective measure. Every woman, particularly those with significant self-acquired property, should indeed take steps to execute a comprehensive will that reflects her wishes and protects her family's interests.
However, this advisory should simultaneously serve as a clear call for broader legal reform. The fact that the highest court must urge women to avoid existing succession law provisions suggests that those provisions themselves require examination and reform. Gender equality in inheritance rights is not merely a personal preference but a constitutional imperative.
As women continue to gain economic independence and contribute substantially to society, our succession laws must keep pace with this transformation. The judiciary can guide the conversation, but ultimately, Parliament must enact legislation that treats women as autonomous individuals with complete authority over their self-acquired property. Until that happens, women must remain vigilant through personal legal instruments like wills, while continuing to advocate for the systemic legal changes that genuine gender justice demands.
The Supreme Court has sounded the alarm. Now, society must pay attention to it, both by taking immediate protective action and by demanding permanent legal reform.
. . .
References: