The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, represented a significant step towards gender equality in the Hindu law of inheritance. Specifically, the amendment sought to extend coparcenary rights to daughters, allowing them to inherit ancestral property on an equal footing with sons. Section 6 of the amended Act, which governs the rights of daughters, asserts that a daughter of a coparcener shall, by birth, become a coparcener, effectively making her a co-owner of the ancestral property. This provision is one of the key reforms introduced in the 2005 amendment, aimed at eliminating gender-based discrimination in Hindu law.
 
In the landmark case of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma AIR 2020 SC 3717, the Supreme Court of India held that the amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act had a retrospective effect, making daughters born before 2005 equally entitled to coparcenary rights. This judgment has been widely discussed and debated, particularly regarding its interpretation of the retrospective application of the law. This article critically evaluates the Vineeta Sharma judgment by addressing both the legislative intent behind the 2005 amendment and the practical difficulties that arise from such retrospective application.  

1. The Wording of Section 6 and Legislative Intent The key provision under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, is Section 6, which states:

   "On and from the commencement of the Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2005, the daughter of a coparcener shall, by birth, become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son."

   The phrase "on and from the commencement of the Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2005" clearly points to the date the amendment came into force (9 September 2005) as the starting point for the recognition of daughters as coparceners. However, in the Vineeta Sharma case, the Supreme Court interpreted the provision as having a retrospective effect, extending coparcenary rights to all daughters, including those born before 2005.
    
2. The Retrospective Application: A Practical Dilemma The retrospective application of the amendment raises several practical issues in property distribution. For example, if a family has been distributing property for generations, the entitlement of daughters born before 2005 must now be factored into historical property divisions. This reworking of past property distributions could create substantial legal and administrative challenges.
    
3. Why Pious Obligation Was Not Extended to Daughters If daughters born before 2005 were eligible for coparcenary rights, then they should have also inherited liabilities under the pious obligation doctrine. However, the law provides that sons remain liable for debts incurred by the father before 2005, whereas daughters are not. This inconsistent application suggests that the legislature did not intend for daughters born before 2005 to have full coparcenary rights.
    
4. Legislative Intent: Prospective Application A more reasonable interpretation of the legislative intent behind the 2005 amendment is that it applies prospectively, meaning it only affects daughters born after 2005. If the legislature had intended the law to be retrospective, it would have explicitly stated so, as it has in other legal provisions.
    
5. The Need for Clarity and Practicality The Vineeta Sharma judgment highlights gender inequality in Hindu law but also raises serious questions about its practical application. By making the amendment retrospective, the Supreme Court has created a legal framework that may be difficult to enforce, leading to unnecessary legal disputes.
    
6. What They Bring as Daughters, They Lose as Widows and Mothers Women's financial contributions from their parental homes often merge into the joint family property of their matrimonial homes. However, upon their husband's death, they inherit property only as Class I heirs, while their daughters enjoy coparcenary rights. This means that what they gain as daughters, they lose as widows.
    

A woman contributing two times of matrimonial home's property, say one crore as coparcenar of her parental home, adding to 50 lakhs worth property at matrimonial home may end up receiving 1/10th of husband's share (immediately before his death) of 30 lacs worth coparcenary property if there are 10 class I heirs which is merely 3 lacs. In simple words she brought 1 crore as coparcenar of parental home to end up receiving Rs.3 lacs as mother/widow, which raises serious questions about her financial independence and social security in old age.
 
Conclusion 
The Vineeta Sharma judgment has undoubtedly played a pivotal role in advancing the cause of gender equality within Hindu inheritance law, but it has done so by extending coparcenary rights to daughters born before 2005, despite the absence of explicit legislative language to that effect.
 
A strict interpretation of Section 6 suggests that the law was intended to be prospective, applying only to daughters born after 2005, and does not support the retroactive application as applied by the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the discrepancy in liabilities between sons and daughters born before 2005, as well as the practical difficulties in reworking generations of property distribution, suggest that the legislative intent was likely to provide equal rights for daughters going forward, but not to disturb the legal status quo prior to 2005.
 
While the judgment can be seen as a step forward in achieving gender justice, it also raises concerns about the practical implications of a retrospective application that has not been sufficiently addressed. This critical evaluation calls for further clarification of legislative intent and a balanced approach to the equality of inheritance rights, one that considers both the legal and practical challenges of implementing such reforms.

Written By: A. Chandra Sekhar, MBA, MA, LLM, Asst. Professor (Law), Hyderabad