indian supreme court's mistake about hindu ladies' right to property

[jamahir]

Daughters cannot inherit ancestral property if father died before 2005: Supreme Court
Last Updated: Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - 10:07

New Delhi: In a major setback for many women across the country, the Supreme Court has said that a daughter's right to ancestral property does not arise if the father died before the amendment to Hindu law came into force in 2005.

The apex court held that amended provisions of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, do not have retrospective effect. The father would have to be alive on September 09, 2005, if the daughter were to become a co-sharer with her male siblings.

A bench of Justices Anil R Dave and Adarsh K Goel held that the date of a daughter becoming coparcener is on and from the commencement of the Act.

On September 9, 2005 the landmark amendment to The Hindu Succession Act of 1956, which originally denied women the right to inherit ancestral property, ruled that a Hindu woman or a girl will have equal property rights along with her male relatives for any partition made in ancestral property.

Earlier, women could only ask for sustenance from a joint Hindu family. The only restriction in force after the passage of this amendment was that women could not ask for a share if the property had been alienated or partitioned before December 20, 2004, the date the Bill was introduced. But now the Supreme Court has added this new restriction.

--------
source - Daughters cannot inherit ancestral property if father died before 2005: Supreme Court | Zee News
--------

jamahir's comment - this shows two things - (a). the supreme court is not always right about things, whether social or political, and the only supreme decider is plain common sense. (b). india desperately socialism and in consequence, the "uniform civil code" which of course must be designed and refined by progressives.

 

[Maravan]

Deleted..

 

[It.is.all.mudi's.fault]

Daughters cannot inherit ancestral property if father died before 2005: Supreme Court
Last Updated: Tuesday, November 3, 2015 - 10:07

New Delhi: In a major setback for many women across the country, the Supreme Court has said that a daughter's right to ancestral property does not arise if the father died before the amendment to Hindu law came into force in 2005.

The apex court held that amended provisions of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, do not have retrospective effect. The father would have to be alive on September 09, 2005, if the daughter were to become a co-sharer with her male siblings.

A bench of Justices Anil R Dave and Adarsh K Goel held that the date of a daughter becoming coparcener is on and from the commencement of the Act.

On September 9, 2005 the landmark amendment to The Hindu Succession Act of 1956, which originally denied women the right to inherit ancestral property, ruled that a Hindu woman or a girl will have equal property rights along with her male relatives for any partition made in ancestral property.

Earlier, women could only ask for sustenance from a joint Hindu family. The only restriction in force after the passage of this amendment was that women could not ask for a share if the property had been alienated or partitioned before December 20, 2004, the date the Bill was introduced. But now the Supreme Court has added this new restriction.

--------
source - Daughters cannot inherit ancestral property if father died before 2005: Supreme Court | Zee News
--------

jamahir's comment - this shows two things - (a). the supreme court is not always right about things, whether social or political, and the only supreme decider is plain common sense. (b). india desperately socialism and in consequence, the "uniform civil code" which of course must be designed and refined by progressives.

Mullah Jamahir.

This concept may be too complex for you to understand, but laws are applicable only from the date they come into force. This principle is called protection from ex-post facto legislation.

Supreme court has only reiterated this basic cannon of law. Since the law providing for inheritance of property by daughters came into effect in 2005, it could not be applied retrospectively to cases before that cut-off date.

 

[punit]

do they have SC in Libya?

 

[Maravan]

Mullah Jamahir.

This concept may be too complex for you to understand, but laws are applicable only from the date they come into force. This principle is called protection from ex-post facto legislation.

Supreme court has only reiterated this basic cannon of law. Since the law providing for inheritance of property by daughters came into effect in 2005, it could not be applied retrospectively to cases before that cut-off date.

I known an orphan siblings. Their father died before 2005 when the kids(boy and girl) were minor, now they become major.. only the boy will have the share in property and girl won't have any right since her father died before 2005... How this law will do justice to that girl?

 

[It.is.all.mudi's.fault]

I known an orphan siblings. Their father died before 2005 when the kids(boy and girl) were minor, now they become major.. only the boy will have the share in property and girl won't have any right since her father died before 2005... How this law will do justice to that girl?

I have never accused dravidians of having a brain. They are incapable of abstract though ,and thus could not grasp a simple concept that if laws are allowed to be applied retrospectively, then the government of the day could screw them so bad that they would defecate from mouth. One day you get arrested for vandalism during a protest, if government of the day does not like you, it would increase quantum of punishment for vandalism from a mild fine to death penalty and apply that retrospectively.

This is the reason that protection from ex-post facto legislation, double jeoprady, and self incrimination are basic fundamental rights under art 20; but that would not prevent you people from making a scene.

 

[rubyjackass]

Mullah Jamahir.

This concept may be too complex for you to understand, but laws are applicable only from the date they come into force. This principle is called protection from ex-post facto legislation.

Supreme court has only reiterated this basic cannon of law. Since the law providing for inheritance of property by daughters came into effect in 2005, it could not be applied retrospectively to cases before that cut-off date.

Government can make laws with retrospective effect. But they won't in this case, because legally many cases might have already been settled. There is no point digging into all the cases now. So in this case, the law should be left alone.

@jamahir At least the law came in 2005 and gave women rights, that is good. We should look at practicality in framing the law. For example, what should we do if the sons of a father who died after 2005 already spent their money and now became paupers? It is common sense which says the law need not be applied retrospectively.

 

[Levina]

The apex court held that amended provisions of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, do not have retrospective effect. The father would have to be alive on September 09, 2005, if the daughter were to become a co-sharer with her male siblings

That's like saying that an accused in the rape case should be set free because he violated a woman before so and so date when the rape law had not been amended.
Sorry, I was forced to compare it with the rape law, but I thought that might drill some sense into those who fail to understand the repurcussion of this decision by Indian Supreme Court.

 

[jamahir]

Mullah Jamahir.

This concept may be too complex for you to understand, but laws are applicable only from the date they come into force. This principle is called protection from ex-post facto legislation.

Supreme court has only reiterated this basic cannon of law. Since the law providing for inheritance of property by daughters came into effect in 2005, it could not be applied retrospectively to cases before that cut-off date.

"canon of law", "ex-post facto legislation"... my dear saffroni, stop trying to hide a mistake by using confusing and unnecessary technical words.

that act of 1956 was obviously a unjust law for the ladies, and this new mistake compounds the injustice in a society which has round-the-year injustices, confusions and nonsenses.

but doesn't matter, "uniform civil code" is the temporary immediate solution.

do they have SC in Libya?

yes, the jamahiriya did, but the social/economic system was guided by socialism so life was made quite simple indeed which did not create majority of the social problems that indians suffer, especially in the context of this thread, the quarrels and injustice over property.

there was no homeless person in the jamahiriya because housing ( rent-free ) is a right, a unemployed person was given a amount per month that mirrored the minimal salary for his or her immediate field and the remaining material facilities and needs were either free or of low cost... and then just before 2011 was the plan for citizens to directly share in the oil revenue by having their non-interest-based bank accounts being deposited with 500 dollars every month.

no one could own a house additional to what they needed to live in, because that would be depriving another person of a house... contrast that to india ( or usa ) where some rich person might own five additional housing properties that he rents out while five homeless families exist on roadsides.

no brother or mother could hold a family lady to ransom by saying "listen to us or we will throw you out of the house" because the system would give her a house that she could inhabit rent-free for as long as she wants... this was same for the males... so family oppression was not allowed and if a aberration happened, was taken seriously and punishments given out, because in the then libya, human life was sacred.

these laws were for the muslim majority of libya and for the christians... and for the muslim ladies, the modern socialist facilities were in addition to the economic security given by the quran to ladies.

life was comfortable in libyan jamahiriya.

@jamahir At least the law came in 2005 and gave women rights, that is good.

yes, it was good, but what was also good about the 2005 was its clear recognition that from 1947 until 2005, hindu ladies were being done injustice by the brahminical law they were surrounded by.

It is common sense which says the law need not be applied retrospectively.

well, that is just a obvious technical fact.

We should look at practicality in framing the law. For example, what should we do if the sons of a father who died after 2005 already spent their money and now became paupers?

only to reply to the case you present, obviously the sister or sisters have not been given share when it was due to them and the brothers did cheating... now, the brothers are paupers but they themselves must be needing money but instead of doing individual wage-slavery ( jobs ) and not being able to do much about themselves let alone their sisters, they should all ( brothers and sisters ) pool together and start business... the sisters will be given justice this way.

but for removal of all such problems and confusions, is the need for ucc but which is only a temporary immediate solution until socialism is applied.

That's like saying that an accused in the rape case should be set free because he violated a woman before so and so date when the rape law had not been amended.
Sorry, I was forced to compare it with the rape law, but I thought that might drill some sense into those who fail to understand the repurcussion of this decision by Indian Supreme Court.

well said.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

Government can make laws with retrospective effect. But they won't in this case, because legally many cases might have already been settled. There is no point digging into all the cases now. So in this case, the law should be left alone.

@jamahir At least the law came in 2005 and gave women rights, that is good. We should look at practicality in framing the law. For example, what should we do if the sons of a father who died after 2005 already spent their money and now became paupers? It is common sense which says the law need not be applied retrospectively.

I agree....a 1000 cases will open and flood the already flooded system

 

[livingdead]

you cant apply laws retrospectively, unfortunately. @jamahir
I know, common sense is not useful when it comes to even slightly informed view of a topic, be it law, science or sociology. One has to read and understand why retropective change to law(even in good faith) is a terrible idea.

I am all for equality btw, its good thing that hindu law caught up with modern laws in 2005.

Quiz question to you @jamahir : As a noob about economics, why cant we just print truckloads of money and give it to poor people. Most village folks with excellent common sense will agree that its bloody politicians who want to keep us poor which is why they wont print it.
Tell us what your common sense says.

 

[Sky lord]

That's like saying that an accused in the rape case should be set free because he violated a woman before so and so date when the rape law had not been amended.
Sorry, I was forced to compare it with the rape law, but I thought that might drill some sense into those who fail to understand the repurcussion of this decision by Indian Supreme Court.

A person will be tried for the law he is breaking. If there was no law at the time of his action then he is not breaking any law.

I buy a house in mumbai today, 10 years later a law comes saying jail time for everyone who buys property in Mumbai - so do I go to jail because I could not foresee the law of the future?
Unless you specifically pass retrospective legislation.

The law is the law and it works as it does.

do they have SC in Libya?

Good question

 

[Bang Galore]

That's like saying that an accused in the rape case should be set free because he violated a woman before so and so date when the rape law had not been amended.
Sorry, I was forced to compare it with the rape law, but I thought that might drill some sense into those who fail to understand the repurcussion of this decision by Indian Supreme Court.

Poor choice for comparison. What @Sky lord said is correct. You cannot convict a man/woman on the basis of an amended law passed after the act.

?
Unless you specifically pass retrospective legislation.

No criminal conviction possible in India under an ex post facto law. Even if a law is so legislated.

 

[Levina]

A person will be tried for the law he is breaking. If there was no law at the time of his action then he is not breaking any law.

I buy a house in mumbai today, 10 years later a law comes saying jail time for everyone who buys property in Mumbai - so do I go to jail because I could not foresee the law of the future?
Unless you specifically pass retrospective legislation.

The law is the law and it works as it does.


Good question

Yes I understand the logic. But those women had the right to property since their birth. If an unamended law was unjust to them then SC should have compensated for it.

Poor choice for comparison. What @Sky lord said is correct. You cannot convict a man/woman on the basis of an amended law passed after the act.

It is not about "can NOT convict", it's about whether SC has the will to convict.

 

[Sky lord]

Yes I understand the logic. But those women had the right to property since their birth. If an unamended law was unjust to them then SC should have compensated for it.

It is not about "can NOT convict", it's about whether SC has the will to convict.

Compensated how?