The Supreme Court emphasized that the constitutional challenge to section 15(1)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act requires affected parties to raise issues, thus limiting the petitioner's academic pursuits.

ORDER

We have heard Sri Goburdhun, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent(s)-Union of India at length.

2. This Writ Petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of a young lawyer who is stated to have been practicing for about five years, at the time when the Writ Petition was filed. The Writ Petition is stated to be filed in Public Interest.

3. The petitioner herein has sought the following reliefs:

a) Issue, an appropriate Writ of Mandamus, Order, or Directions, or any other appropriate Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Directions declaring Section 15 [1][b] of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 as unconstitutional, Ultravires the Constitution, as violative of Articles 14, 15, 21 of the Constitution and declaring the said Section is obliterated from the statute books, and is struck of from the Hindu Succession Act ,1956 from the very inception of enacting the said Act;

b)to direct the Respondents to discharge their constitutional duties and obligation, by framing appropriate laws for Females Intestate/ under Hindu Succession Act by keeping in mind the principles laid down in Article 51 of the Constitution and adhere to formulate the Law by following the Convention of United Nations-Treaty of CEDAW convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women;

c) or to pass such other order/directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit or proper in the interest of justice;

4. Essentially, the petitioner has assailed Section 15 (1)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act , 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) on the premise that it is violative of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India and hence, has sought for striking down of the said provision.

5. In sum and substance, the grievance of the petitioner is that if a female Hindu dies intestate and in the absence of such a female Hindu having a son, daughter, or husband, her properties cannot devolve only upon the heirs of the husband as per clause (b) of Section 15 (1) of the Act. The contention of the learned senior counsel is that her properties must devolve upon her mother and father as delineated in Clause (c) of Section 15 (1) of the Act. Learned senior counsel submitted that insofar as sub-section (2) of Section 15 is concerned, the said Section is crafted on the basis of the source of the properties that the deceased female has inherited from and there could be no quarrel with the same. However, the Act, which was enforced on 17^th June, 1956 did not take into consideration the fact that a female Hindu dying intestate would have properties other than what is stated in sub- section (2) of Section 15 of the Act inasmuch as such a female Hindu would also have self-acquired properties. The Section does not take note of this aspect and hence in the event a female Hindu dies intestate, in the absence of a son, daughter or husband, her properties would devolve only on the heirs of her husband. Such a nature of devolution to the exclusion of her matrimonial family is arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

6. Learned senior counsel gave examples of a female Hindu dying intestate and in the absence of having a son, daughter or husband could have enabled her parents to inherit her property but for the provision of Section 15 (1)(b) of the Act. That, in the hierarchy of succession, the parents are in Clause (c) to sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act whereas the heir