Right in Law, Denied in Reality: A Socio-Legal Study on the Non-Implementation of Daughters’ Coparcenary Rights in India
ABSTRACT
The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act of 2005 shifted the perspective of inheritance law by granting daughters equal holding in coparcenary rights, thereby tearing down a time-honored and unjust system of inheritance rights. While this change was to uplift and empower daughters as well as to erase generations of gender based injustice. However, the reality is emotionally tangled, especially in rural and semi-urban India. Even though the law gave daughters an equal right, its enforcement is still controlled by patriarchal norms, societal resistance, and gaps in the system. By looking at the socio-legal analysis, case studies, and historical data, this paper looks at why there’s a gap between what the law promises and what happens in reality. To move forward, the article recommends corrective measures to narrow the disparity between the law and its actualization. Without such coordinated action by lawmakers and society, the right in law will remain a denied reality for women across the country.
KEYWORDS
Coparcenary, Daughters’ Rights, Hindu Succession Act, Non-Implementation, Gender Equality, Statutory Reform, Inheritance Law.
INTRODUCTION
The 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act wasn’t just an update—it was a stand against the persistent idea that bloodlines and property should be reserved for male heirs only. Inheritance laws are important to protect social and economic justice, especially for females in patriarchal societies. The deprivation of property rights to women has made them economically dependent and socially disadvantaged. Also, when looking at the constitutional angle, when the constitution was born is was not just a legal document, it was a promise and hope for millions. It was a promise that every Indian, no matter of any caste, class, or gender, would be treated equally and with dignity. But for years, that promise was ignored on the daughter’s behalf.
Daughters of Hindu Joint families were turned into outsiders by the law. The constitution, the giver of equality, remained silent despite claiming principles of equality, meanwhile personal laws validated discrimination. The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act of 2005 attempted to repair these historical wrongs, but the societal behavior has compromised the effectiveness of such changes. As per the Mitakshara system, the right to ancestral property was something a boy inherited the moment he was born. But for daughters, that door always remained closed, which reflected how society viewed a woman’s place in the family. Even when the Hindu Succession Act,1956, came into existence, it did not lead to a real transformation. Daughters were mentioned just as heirs but not as coparceners, which means they were acknowledged but not empowered. The 2005 amendment corrected this neglect of women’s rights by adding section 6, giving daughters equal coparcenary rights1, but the reality indicates inconsistency between the legal right and its enforcement.
This raises the question of this study: Why does a right which is guaranteed by the constitution, backed by statutory reform, and has judicial validity remain denied in reality?
This study is important because it looks into how law and society interact, mainly in a system where patriarchy still holds good control. It focuses on transforming the statutory reform into an impactful change for women. This research provides practical and grounded solutions to make daughters’ inheritance rights a lived reality, not just a promise on paper.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This research adopts a combination of doctrinal and socio-legal methodology to give both legal and human ideas on the question raised. The doctrinal approach involves a detailed study of the Hindu Succession Act,2005, and also looks into the important decisions by the Supreme Court. The socio-legal approach focuses on understanding how society, family, and traditions stop women from claiming their rights by using articles, reports, and real-life examples.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
In the beginning, most of the studies focused on the inconsistent rules in the Hindu succession laws, stating how the laws are biased in favoring males over females. The 174th Report of The Law Commission of India in the year 20002, recommended to reframe section 6 to include daughters as coparceners, advocating that it is violative of articles 14 and 15 of the Indian Constitution.
Flavia Agnees argues that these rights are not the same as those of sons, and major inequalities exist. The amendment was just a mere landmark reform, but was not backed by commitment and awareness. She urges meaningful changes in the law so that women can claim their rights, or else they will continue to be emotionally pressured to let go of their rights.3
Bina Agarwal highlights that when women have control over assets, their voices carry more emphasis in the family. But she also pointed out that merely having a right isn’t enough, implementation of those rights must be guaranteed by the institutions.4
A recent study by the CSR- Centre for Social Research uncovered a harsh reality that less than 20% of the eligible daughters have actually received property under the 2005 amendment law.5 What’s more disturbing is that the trend of informal family settlements is growing, where daughters are emotionally forced to give up on their property rights. The reasons behind such settlements are usually in return for dowries or just to maintain family peace.
As per the latest NITI Aayog report, the value of female land ownership in India is surprisingly very low. As per the report, women are 50% of both the country’s population and it’s agricultural workforce. But however, they own very less land holdings, approximately 13% of the land is owned by women.6 This difference is not about numbers, it’s about the hurdles a women has to face for getting that ownership. The report expressly states that it’s not just the families but the complicated procedures, lack of awareness, negligence of institutions, and the state that make women helpless and marginalized.
EVOLUTION OF COPARCENARY LAW
Under the traditional Mitakshara law, only sons were considered to be the acquirers of the property. So it only sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons were recognized as coparceners under Mitakshara law. The introduction of the Hindu Succession Act,1956, did not change much, as daughters were still not considered coparceners and had limited inheritance rights. daughters were not considered as coparceners, they were classified as Class 1 heirs, which means that they could inherit only when there’s no son or other male coparceners. It was the 174th Report of the Law Commission of India in the year 2000, which recommended such an amendment which includes daughters as coparceners, by arguing that putting daughters in class 1 heirs, violates their Right to Equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. The amendment of 2005 brought significant reforms in the property rights of daughters and held them coparceners by birth. The amendment brought major changes to the status of women in Hindu succession laws as daughters were made coparceners by birth, they were granted the right to seek partition, also to be held equally liable for debts, and married daughters were now included within the ambit of joint family property. These changes were declared to have a retrospective effect, conferring the status of coparcenary to the daughters, whether born before or after the amendment. This reform came by adhering to Article 14 of the Indian Constitution and was a great step towards gender justice.
JUDICIAL INTERPRETATIONS
Prakash v. Phulwati, (2016) 2 SCC 36, held that the amendment of 2005 is prospective and it applies only when both the father and the daughter were alive on September 9th,20057. This interpretation was a major setback, as it created a limitation that if the father passed away before the amendment, the daughter was held to be ineligible to claim her property rights.
Danamma v. Amar, (2018) 3 SCC 343, gave daughters the coparcenary rights even if the father was not alive when the provision came into force8. But this created a lot of confusion as the court didn’t mention or re-evaluate the Prakash and Phulwati judgement.
Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, (2020) 9 SCC 1, this landmark case ruled that the rights of daughters are by birth, and are not subject to whether the father was alive on the date of the amendment came into force9. This judgement brought a big change in the interpretation of daughters’ rights by clearly and expressly stating that daughters have full right to claim their share, not dependent on the father’s death. The judgement also made clear that this law applies retrospectively.
These judicial pronouncements address the issues related to the retrospective application of rights, but fail to ensure the actual implementation of such laws. Also, various judicial inconsistencies, like different perspectives on the interpretation of ‘Ancestral Property’ and the applicability of the amendment to pending cases, led to legal chaos. While these were just legal judgements, which clearly does not guarantee that all daughters are actually getting their rights. these judgements, can only help in understanding the law better, but the real applicability of that law is still confined by patriarchal substances, lack of confidence, fear of stigma, complex procedures and emotional manipulation.
OBSTACLES IN IMPLEMENTATION
- PATRIARCHAL BEHAVIOUR
Even today, property is seen as a male domain. A daughter demanding property is said to be challenging the male coparcener and is often viewed as a family breaker or labeled as greedy and selfish. Despite such major legal reforms, patriarchal attitude is still an aspect of Indian families. Daughters of such families are told to give up what is legally theirs through emotional manipulation.
- NO MEDIA/CAMPAIGN ATTENTION
We come across stories of dowry, domestic violence and harassment at the workplace, these issues are discussed in the news, shows and films. But how many times, do we read or hear about a daughter fighting for her share in the family’s land? Very rarely. This silence is not normal, it shows how society does not even consider property rights as a women’s issue. Even the feminist campaigns only revolve around domestic violence and harassment, they does not even talk about land and property rights. As a result, daughters while growing think that asking for property is not normal or allowed, they even feel selfish and shameful.
- LACK OF AWARENESS
Studies have proven that the majority of women residing in rural and semi-urban areas are unaware of their inheritance rights, which is a major barrier to the practical implementation of these laws.10 Such a lack arises due to limited access to legal resources, low levels of literacy, and dependence on male counterparts for knowledge and information. Very simply this could be seen as a major problem in property rights of women, as right which is unknown, cannot be used ever. It is like a wasted opportunity.
Lack of awareness also lead to women signing legal documents without knowing anything. They are made to sign documents like NOCs, and deeds by emotional manipulation.
Most daughters are never ever taught legal rights, especially property rights, either in school or at home. While sons are seen included in discussions regarding the property but daughters are left unheard.
4. PROCEDURAL AND LEGAL CHALLENGES
Judicial delays pose a significant bottleneck in enforcement. The Indian judicial system has loads of backlogs, and the procedure’s complexity is difficult to understand. Many property disputes drag on in courts for years. Women often face difficulty in proving their coparcenary status in courts. Also, proper documentation of property and land often makes it more difficult for women to find a legal recourse.
The whole process of partition and property division involves various complex steps, like, multiple departments, unclear steps and complex paperwork. Many a times, educated women find it difficult to approach the administration, which leads to delay and discouragement in women.
5. FEAR OF SOCIAL STIGMA
Women refrain from claiming their rights for fear of resistance from family and community members. They fear being blamed and labelled as greedy, selfish, and face disconnection and violence. Also, the society will praise her for sacrificing her part of the property. The guilt of blame for family breakdown, stops a woman from claiming what is legally hers. Not only exclusion from her family, but a woman or her family may face a boycott from the village or their caste.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CHANGE
1. PUBLIC ACCESSIBLE SCOREBOARDS
A publically accessible scoreboard should be made in rural or semi urban areas, that ranks every village or district based on the number of women who actually receive their rightful share. This would create pressure on the district administrations or panchayats when they know they are being measured and compared, they are likely to act much better. Such data would be measured on the basis of some indicators and every 4th or 6th month, the data can be published by the state women’s commission.
2. PUBLIC AWARENESS CAMPAIGNS
Women cannot claim rights they don’t know they have. State and central governments must invest in legal literacy campaigns, by not just explaining the law but also how to implement and claim it. This should happen at every level, whether in rural or semi-urban areas, especially where misinformation runs deep. Different entertaining ways of creating awareness can be followed, like the inclusion of “property rights of women” topics in serials, or through street play, which could help in an easy and entertaining understanding of a topic.
3. ENSURING CO-OWNERSHIP RIGHTS
Make it a legal requirement to include daughters as co-owners during property registration or transfer within joint families. This simple step can reduce countless disputes later and ensure the rights of daughters since the very beginning. A government-issued form should be introduced that can be filled out easily, without many legal procedures. Also, an online portal should be made where the daughters can check and verify their co-ownership authority for a particular land/property.
4. ACCESSIBLE LEGAL SUPPORT
Many women give up their rights simply because they cannot afford a lawyer or understand legal paperwork, such complex procedures make them loose hope and gives discouragement. To tackle this situation, Legal aid clinics should be easily accessible at the village (panchayat) and district levels. NGOs can play a vital role, by helping women to gather documents, understand procedures, and be strong in court.
5. EDUCATION SYSTEM REFORMS
Basic legal awareness chapters should be included in school’s syllabus, especially property and inheritance rights. Rural schools in particular should empower girls early, so while they grow up, they know that they have a rightful stake in the family, not just responsibilities without ownership. If not this, then the Schools should organize annual legal awareness camps by collaborating with NGOs and government authorities. School teachers should be trained to talk about gender neutral rights, not just for knowledge but for practical application.
6. FAST-TRACK INHERITANCE DISPUTES
Waiting years for justice is no justice at all. Set up dedicated fast-track benches or special courts to resolve women’s inheritance cases swiftly. Time-bound decisions would reduce harassment and strengthen confidence in the legal system. This can be made possible by introducing special bench for inheritance issues or by making the delivery of orders, time bound. Also to prevent delay in resolving of dispute, mediation cells should be set up, to resolve the issue without going through litigation.
7. TECHNOLOGY INTERVENTIONS
Create a central, user-friendly digital portal where women can check if they have a claim on ancestral land. Link it to digitized land records to increase transparency, reduce fraud, and make it easier for women to assert their rights without always having to rely on others. By the help of such digital records, women can check the status of their inclusivity, such technological tools are already being initiated in states like karnataka, Odisha, and Telangana.
CONCLUSION
The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, was meant to change things. It was a landmark step toward giving daughters a equal place in their families and in the law. But on the ground, not much has chnaged. Even today, many daughters are quietly pushed aside when it comes to ancestral property. Deep-rooted traditions, slow court systems, and a lack of support continue to hold them back, no matter what the law says.
This article shows that changing the law alone isn’t enough. Real change needs more than just words on paper. It needs awareness at every level, people who hold systems accountable, a shift in how families think, and a judiciary that not only interprets the law fairly but enforces it strongly. Real change will happen only when some real steps are taken, like ranking districts based on how well they support women, including property rights related syllabus in schools, digital record of land ownership, etc.
From a different angle, this issue is not just about getting a claim over the property by the daughters, it’s more about inclusivity, equality, dignity and holding a same place like that of a man. Just as promised in the constitution, women have to fight for what is already theirs.
Until that happens, equality will stay closed in just texts, promised in theory and denied in everyday life.
REFERENCES
- Hindu Succession Act, No. 30 of 1956, § 6, amended by Act No. 39 of 2005.
- Law Comm’n of India, 174th Report on Property Rights of Women: Proposed Reforms under the Hindu Law, ¶ 3.2 (2000).
- Flavia Agnes, Hindu Women’s Coparcenary Rights: From Stridhan to Property Rights, 9 Indian J. Gender Stud. 2, 236 (2002).
- Bina Agarwal, A Field of One’s Own: Gender and Land Rights in South Asia (Cambridge Univ. Press 1994).
- Centre for Social Research, Women’s Inheritance Rights in India: A Study, CSR Report (2022).
- NITI Aayog, Strategy for New India @ 75, at 78–80 (2018), https://www.niti.gov.in/sites/default/files/2019-01/Strategy_for_New_India.pdf.
- Prakash v. Phulavati, (2016) 2 S.C.C. 36.
- Danamma v. Amar, (2018) 3 S.C.C. 343.
- Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, (2020) 9 S.C.C. 1.
- CSR Report, supra note 6.
NAME: TANUJA RANJAN
INSTITUTION’S NAME: LLOYD SCHOOL OF LAW, GREATER NOIDA