Supreme Court Asks Petitioner Challenging Amendments To Mizo Inheritance Law To Approach High Court
The Supreme Court recently refused to entertain a petition challenging the 2026 amendments to the Mizo Marriage, Divorce and Inheritance of Property Act, 2014, which are stated to be discriminatory towards Mizo women who marry non-Mizo men.
A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana observed that the issue could be effectively addressed by the jurisdictional High Court. Considering however the petitioner's apprehension that the matter may not be heard at the Aizawl Bench, due to a charged atmosphere, the Court gave her liberty to approach the Principal bench of the Guwahati High Court.
It was opined that the matter prima facie requires preferential attention.
Briefly put, the petition challenged amendments made to Sections 2, 3(m), 25 and 26(1) of The Mizo Marriage, Divorce and Inheritance of Property Act, 2014. According to the plea, the amended Section 2 restricts the applicability of the Act to marriages where both spouses are Mizo or where only the husband is Mizo. Consequently, a Mizo woman marrying a non-Mizo man is excluded from the statutory framework, while a Mizo man continues to remain covered irrespective of the identity of his spouse.
Further, the petitioner contended that the amendment to Section 3(m), which redefines the expression 'Mizo', was made to give significance to paternal lineage and the identity of the spouse. Earlier, the Act applied to any person belonging to a Mizo tribe and extended to marriage where the male member belonged to a Mizo tribe. Now, the amendment requires both parties to be Mizo or applies to male members belonging to the Mizo tribe.
It was highlighted that the earlier definition of 'Mizo' included persons by birth, adoption, and those accepted by the community. But now, it only includes those individuals by birth or those whose father belongs to a Mizo tribe, thereby introducing a strictly patrilineal standard. This amendment, when read with Section 2, would effectively result in the marginalization of the independent identity of a Mizo woman. It will consequently lead to unequal treatment meted to children born to Mizo women if she marries outside her tribe, the petitioner claimed.
It was also stated in the petition that since in Mizoram, the issues of inheritance, succession and rights are intrinsically connected with the Mizo tribal framework, the impact of these amendments would not be confined to the matrimonial status of Mizo women but will also extend to their valuable proprietary and inheritance interests and access to protection as Scheduled Tribes. It therefore indirectly impinges upon the constitutional scheme governing recognition of Scheduled Tribes under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution.
The petitioner further assailed the omission of an explicit statutory safeguard in Section 26(1), which protected the personal property of a woman from interference. She also pointed to Section 25, which introduces a 50% statutory limitation on the share of a woman in matrimonial property.
Appearance: Sr Adv Anupam Raina, Advocates Pulkit U Agarwal, Prerak Khurana, Helen Lalthanpari, Sudhanshu Kaushesh, Anubhav Lamba, Rajat Kumar, Sudhanshu Kumar, Shubham Singh, Siddarth Malhotra, Md. Anas Chaudhary, Zahid Taj Ali, Ankur Parihar, Mohit Agarwal, AoR Pulkit Agarwal
Case : MERIAM L HRANGCHAL v. STATE OF MIZORAM WP(C) No.1046/2026