UP Revenue Code 2006 : High Court Slams State's 'Woefully Lacking' Affidavit On Women's Succession Rights In Agricultural Land

The 5 pleas challenge Sections 108, 109, and 110 of the 2006 Code, contending that these provisions discriminate against women in the line of succession to agricultural holdings.

In a stern order dated January 12, 2026, a Bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary expressed deep dissatisfaction with the State's counter-affidavit.

The Court observed that despite the lead petition pending since 2019, the government has yet to clarify its specific stand on whether the impugned provisions violate the Constitution.

During the hearing, the Court noted that the State's affidavit merely referenced the legislative history of the provisions and failed to address the petitioners' core constitutional challenge.

“The affidavit is woefully lacking in necessary averments on the question of constitutionality and legality of the provisions under challenge. Only legislative history of the provision has been given,” the Bench observed.

The State's affidavit stated that a Cabinet subcommittee was constituted as early as 2018 to consider the provisions of equal rights to unmarried, married and widowed daughters in respect of agricultural land.

However, in a startling admission, the State conceded that “no meeting of the sub-committee was held” and consequently, no decision was taken. The State further submitted that the process of 'reconstituting' this committee is currently underway.

Importantly, Ms Poulomi Pavini Shukla, petitioner-in-person in a connected PIL, pointed out that after the constitution of this committee, some minor amendments were made in the relevant provisions, like incorporating transgenders as successors to such agricultural holding, but no amendment had been inserted with regard to the subject matter in issue.

Refusing to accept vague assurances of the state government, the High Court has directed the Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary (Revenue) to look into the matter personally and file a personal affidavit within two weeks.

The Court has posed the following specific queries to the top officer:

• Is the Government serious about the reference to the Cabinet sub-committee regarding the rights of unmarried, married, and widowed daughters?

• If so, how long will it take to reconstitute the committee, and how long will it take to submit its report?

• Crucially, what is the specific stand of the State Government regarding the constitutionality of the provisions under challenge?

“The Additional Chief Secretary/ Principal Secretary (Revenue) would be better advised to look into the matter herself as we will not grant any further opportunity,” the Bench warned.

It may be noted that the lead PIL, filed by Siddhartha Shukla along with connected petitions, primarily argues that the impugned provisions relegate a married woman to a lower degree of heirship compared to male counterparts for inheriting agricultural property.

They contend that this violates Articles 14 (Equality), 15 (Non-discrimination), and 21 (Life and Liberty) of the Constitution of India, as the discrimination is based solely on the woman's marriage.

The central argument is that even if the laws (derived from the archaic U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act, 1950) were once accepted, they must now be interpreted in the context of present-day social situations and constitutional morality.

The Court's stern stance is grounded in a long history of delays. Between 2019 and 2021, the State was granted multiple “last opportunities” to file replies.

In March 2023, the Court noted the matter had “far-reaching and all-encompassing consequences” and it had then summoned the Advocate General.

In May 2023, the HC refused to grant an interim stay on the provisions.

The matter is now listed for February 2, 2026, amongst the first ten cases. The Court has appointed Senior Advocate MA Khan and Advocate Apoorva Tewari as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court.

The Bench clarified that if the State wishes to defend the provisions, it must file a better affidavit detailing the specific grounds of defence and supporting material.