The Allahabad High Court delivered a stern rebuke to the Uttar Pradesh government this week. The court demanded immediate action on long-pending amendments to the state's agricultural land succession laws. These laws currently discriminate against daughters, whether they are married, unmarried, or widowed.
Court Voices Strong Dissatisfaction
A division bench comprising Justices Rajan Roy and Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary heard multiple Public Interest Litigations (PILs). These petitions challenge specific provisions within the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code of 2006. The petitioners argue the code is unconstitutional as it denies equal rights to women in agricultural land inheritance.
The bench expressed clear frustration with the state's handling of the issue. "Tell us if you are serious," the court essentially asked the government. It noted the state's affidavits filed over several years were completely inadequate. The documents failed to address the core constitutional questions raised by the discriminatory laws.
Government's Response Deemed Insufficient
The Uttar Pradesh government had submitted affidavits in 2019, 2021, and 2025. In these documents, officials merely recounted the legislative history of the disputed provisions. They also mentioned a cabinet sub-committee formed in 2018. This committee was tasked with proposing amendments to grant equal rights to daughters.
However, the court learned this sub-committee never actually convened. No decisions were made. The government's latest affidavit states the process to reconstitute this committee is now underway. This explanation did not satisfy the judges.
Advocate Poulomi Pavini Shukla, representing the petitioners, provided crucial context. She informed the court that after the committee's formation, only minor amendments were made. These changes included transgender persons as successors. Yet, no amendments addressed the fundamental discrimination against women in agricultural land succession.
High Court Issues Direct Orders
The bench issued specific, time-bound directives to the state government. It ordered a fresh affidavit to be filed. This document must come directly from the Additional Chief Secretary or Principal Secretary of the Revenue Department.
The affidavit must clearly state whether the government is genuinely committed to resolving this issue. It must also provide a concrete timeline. The court wants to know how long it will take to reconstitute the cabinet sub-committee. Furthermore, it demands an estimate for when the committee will submit its final report.
The court granted a strict deadline of two weeks for filing this affidavit. It warned that no further extensions would be given. The bench strongly advised the senior revenue official to personally oversee the matter. "The Additional Chief Secretary would be better advised to look into the matter herself," the court observed.
Background of the Legal Challenge
The PILs were filed by individuals including Siddharth Shukla, Puneeta, Amita Maurya, Seema Verma, and Poulomi Shukla. Their petitions, submitted between 2019 and 2025, highlight a persistent legal battle. They argue that the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, violates constitutional principles of equality. The law creates different succession rules for sons and daughters regarding agricultural land, a critical asset in the state's economy.
The court's sharp remarks underscore the judiciary's growing impatience with administrative delays. These delays affect fundamental rights, particularly those of women seeking equal inheritance rights. The case continues to spotlight the gap between policy promises and actionable legal reform in matters of gender justice.
