Summary
Mukhtiar Singh held agricultural land in Delhi, and all three of his sons died before him. On his death in 1997, the share of his son Ishwar Singh's branch passed under Section 50(a) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 to Ishwar Singh's sons, to the exclusion of his widow and daughter. The widow and daughter challenged Section 50(a) as discriminatory and argued that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 prevails. The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition because the 1954 Act has been in the Ninth Schedule since before Kesavananda Bharati and is protected by Article 31B. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. Article 254 repugnancy does not arise, as the 1954 Act falls under Entry 18 of List II and is a special law on agricultural tenures. The 2005 deletion of Section 4(2) of the 1956 Act is prospective and cannot affect a succession that opened in 1997.
Issues
- Whether Section 50(a) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, which excludes the widow and daughter in favour of male lineal descendants, can be challenged under Articles 14 and 15
- Whether the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 prevails over the 1954 Act under Article 254
- Whether deletion of Section 4(2) of the 1956 Act in 2005, or Vineeta Sharma, affects a succession that opened in 1997
Provisions considered
- Section 50(a), Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954On the death of the male bhumidhar in 1997, the share of his predeceased son's branch devolved on that son's sons as male lineal descendants, ahead of the widow. (¶¶ 2, 3)
- Article 31B and the Ninth Schedule, Constitution of IndiaThe 1954 Act was placed in the Ninth Schedule before 24 April 1973 and is immune from challenge for violating fundamental rights, which also disposes of the gender-discrimination argument. (¶¶ 7, 13, 14, 28)
- Article 254; Seventh Schedule, List II Entry 18 and List III Entry 5, Constitution of IndiaRepugnancy arises only where both laws are referable to List III. The 1954 Act is referable to Entry 18 of List II, so no question of repugnancy with the 1956 Act arises. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19)
- Section 4(2) (omitted with effect from 9 September 2005), Hindu Succession Act, 1956While in force it saved laws on devolution of tenancy rights in agricultural holdings. Its prospective deletion cannot affect rights that had crystallised on a succession opening in 1997. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23, 25)
- Section 6(b) and (c), General Clauses Act, 1897An omission is a form of repeal and does not affect the previous operation of the omitted provision or rights already accrued under it. (¶¶ 24, 25)
Held
- Legislation placed in the Ninth Schedule before Kesavananda Bharati is protected by Article 31B. The High Court correctly rejected the challenge to Section 50(a), and the plea of gender discrimination therefore fails. (¶¶ 13, 14, 28)
- Under Article 254, repugnancy arises only where both the Central and the State law relate to matters in the Concurrent List (Innoventive Industries). The 1954 Act is referable to Entry 18 of List II, so it is not displaced by the 1956 Act. A State law on agricultural land tenures is a special law, and the 1956 Act is the general law. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 26)
- Amendments operate prospectively unless they are expressly or by intention retrospective. The deletion of Section 4(2) affects only successions opening on or after 9 September 2005. Vineeta Sharma gave retrospective effect only to the amended Section 6, and in any case amendments to the 1956 Act do not touch succession governed by the 1954 Act. (¶¶ 22, 23, 25, 27)
- Babu Ram is distinguishable. It concerned Himachal Pradesh, which had no State enactment on agricultural tenures under Entry 18 of List II, and it recognised that such an enactment would otherwise govern. (¶ 29)
Result
Appeal dismissed. The validity of Section 50(a) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 and the succession of the grandsons were upheld; no order as to costs.