Har Naraini Devi & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.
Background
The appellants, the widow and daughter of one Ishwar Singh, were excluded from inheriting a share of agricultural land left by their grandfather-in-law, because Section 50(a) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 gives priority to male lineal descendants and passed the land instead to Ishwar Singh's sons. The appellants challenged Section 50(a) as unconstitutional, arguing it discriminated against women and was inconsistent with the general Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The Delhi High Court dismissed their writ petition, noting the 1954 Act was shielded from challenge because it is listed in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution. They appealed to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It held that because the 1954 Act was placed in the Ninth Schedule before the landmark Kesavananda Bharati judgment (1973), it enjoys constitutional immunity from challenge under Article 31B, and the appellants did not press the basic-structure argument before the Court. On the claim that the 1954 Act (a state law on "land," a State List subject) conflicted with the 1956 Act (a Parliamentary law), the Court held Article 254 repugnancy applies only when both laws fall under the Concurrent List, since the 1954 Act falls under the State List's land entry, no repugnancy question arises. It also held that the 2005 deletion of a savings clause (Section 4(2)) in the 1956 Act operates only prospectively, so it cannot revive rights in a succession that had already opened and crystallised back in 1997, when the land owner died.
Lesson Learnt
A state law regulating agricultural land tenure that was placed in the Constitution's Ninth Schedule before 1973 is largely immune from a fundamental-rights challenge, and once succession "opens" (i.e., the owner dies) under the law then in force, a later amendment to a different, general succession law does not retrospectively alter who inherits.