Establishment of State Succession Law Supremacy for Agricultural Land Under Ninth Schedule: Har Naraini Devi v. Union of India

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India's judgment in Har Naraini Devi v. Union of India (2022 INSC 986) marks a significant deliberation on the supremacy of state-specific succession laws over general succession statutes, particularly in the context of agricultural land. The case revolves around the challenge to Section 50(a) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, which delineates the order of succession for agricultural properties. The appellants, Har Naraini Devi and her daughter, contested the dismissal of their writ petition by the Delhi High Court, asserting that the section in question was unconstitutional. This comprehensive commentary delves into the layers of legal principles, precedents, and the Court's reasoning that culminated in the final judgment.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the Delhi High Court's decision, thereby dismissing the appellants' plea to declare Section 50(a) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 unconstitutional. The appellants had argued that the section violated Articles 14, 15, 254, and 21 of the Indian Constitution by discriminating on the grounds of sex and conflicting with the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. However, the Supreme Court affirmed that the Delhi Land Reforms Act, being a state enactment placed under the Ninth Schedule, enjoys constitutional protection against such challenges. Additionally, the Court clarified that Article 254, concerning the inconsistency between State and Central laws, was inapplicable since the Delhi Land Reforms Act and the Hindu Succession Act fell under different entries of the Seventh Schedule.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several landmark cases that have shaped the constitutional landscape concerning succession laws and the relationship between State and Central legislations:

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): Established the Basic Structure doctrine, asserting that certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be altered by amendments.
Waman Rao v. Union Of India (1981): Examined the applicability of the Ninth Schedule and the protection it offers to state legislations.
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992): Addressed issues related to reservations and equality under the law.
Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020): Discussed the retrospective application of amendments in succession laws.
Babu Ram v. Santokh Singh (2019): Dealt with the applicability of succession laws in the absence of specific state legislation.
M/S. Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. Icici Bank & Anr. S (2018): Clarified the applicability of Article 254 concerning repugnancy between State and Central laws.
Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills v. CCE (2016): Interpreted the implications of repealing statutory provisions under the General Clauses Act.

These cases collectively informed the Court's stance on the non-repugnancy of the Delhi Land Reforms Act with the Hindu Succession Act and upheld the sanctity of state-specific succession laws for agricultural properties under the Ninth Schedule.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court's legal reasoning was multifaceted:

Ninth Schedule Protection: The Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, being included in the Ninth Schedule prior to the Kesavananda Bharati judgment, is immune from constitutional challenges, including those based on Articles 14, 15, 21, and 254.
Article 254 – Repugnancy: The Court clarified that Article 254, which deals with inconsistencies between State and Central laws under the Concurrent List, was not applicable. This is because the Delhi Land Reforms Act falls under the State List (Entry 18: Land and related matters), whereas the Hindu Succession Act is under the Concurrent List (Entry 5: Succession, wills, etc.). Since both laws do not pertain to the same subject matter within the Concurrent List, no repugnancy exists.
Deletion of Section 4(2) of the 1956 Act: The appellants argued that the deletion of Section 4(2) impacted the applicability of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. The Court held that such deletions do not have retrospective effect unless explicitly stated. Since the succession in question occurred before the deletion, the provisions of Section 50(a) of the 1954 Act remain unaffected.
Special vs. General Laws: The Court reaffirmed that the Delhi Land Reforms Act is a special law governing agricultural land tenures, which takes precedence over the general provisions of the Hindu Succession Act concerning succession.
Gender Discrimination Argument: The appellants contended that Section 50(a) discriminates based on sex. However, since the Act is protected under the Ninth Schedule, this argument was dismissed as the Court found no grounds to challenge the constitutional validity of the Section.

Impact

The judgment has profound implications for succession laws pertaining to agricultural land in India:

Reaffirmation of State Legislations: It solidifies the authority of State-specific succession laws over general Central laws, particularly when such State laws are integral to land reforms and are protected under the Ninth Schedule.
Ninth Schedule as a Shield: The decision reinforces the Ninth Schedule's role in safeguarding agrarian reforms from constitutional challenges, ensuring that established land tenure systems remain unaltered by appeals based on equality and non-discrimination.
Gender Equality Concerns: While the judgment upholds the existing law, it also brings to the forefront the ongoing debate about gender equality in inheritance laws, signaling a need for legislative review if societal norms demand such changes.
Clarity on Article 254: By elucidating that Article 254 does not apply when State and Central laws pertain to different list entries, the ruling provides clear guidance for future cases involving potential conflicts between different legislative domains.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Ninth Schedule

The Ninth Schedule of the Indian Constitution lists statutes that are immune from being challenged in courts on specific grounds, primarily those related to land reforms. Laws placed under this schedule are protected from constitutional scrutiny, meaning their provisions cannot be invalidated on grounds like violation of fundamental rights.

Article 254 – Repugnancy Between Laws

Article 254 addresses conflicts between State and Central laws within the Concurrent List (List III). If both State and Central governments legislate on the same subject under this list and there is a conflict, the Central law prevails. However, if a State law pertains to a subject outside the Concurrent List, Article 254 does not apply.

General Clauses Act, Section 6

This section deals with the implications of repealing or amending existing laws. It states that any repeal or amendment affects only future relations and does not impact past actions or rights that were established under the repealed or amended provision.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in Har Naraini Devi v. Union of India underscores the enduring authority of State-specific succession laws in governing agricultural land, especially when such laws are enshrined in the Ninth Schedule. By dismissing the challenge to Section 50(a) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, the Court not only reinforced the protective veil of the Ninth Schedule but also clarified the boundaries of Article 254 concerning the Concurrent and State Lists. This judgment serves as a pivotal reference for future disputes arising from the intersection of State and Central legislations on land reform and succession, ensuring that established agrarian laws continue to function without undue interference. However, it also implicitly highlights the need for legislative bodies to periodically review and amend such laws to align with evolving societal norms, particularly concerning gender equality.