Plea In Supreme Court Challenges Mizoram Inheritance Law For Excluding Mizo Women Marrying Non-Mizo Men

A writ petition has been filed before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of the amendments introduced through The Mizo Marriage and Inheritance of Property (Amendment) Act, 2026, alleging that the law discriminates against Mizo women who marry non-Mizo men and adversely affects the rights of their children.

The petition challenges 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.

"The amendment thus introduces a gender-based classification founded on the identity of the male spouse and the matrimonial choice of the woman, resulting in manifest arbitrariness and discrimination in violation of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India," as contended in the petition.

Further, the petitioner contends that the amendment to Section 3(m), which redefines the expression 'Mizo', has been 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.

Additionally, 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 marginalisation 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 claims.

It is 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 also their enjoyment and continuity of 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 Section 342 of the Constitution.

"The impugned amendments thereby create serious legal uncertainty and vulnerability in respect of inherited, possessed, allotted, or community-linked land rights held by Mizo women, including the rights arising through customary and community based landholding systems prevalent within Mizoram, and consequently impair their economic security, dignity, and equal status within the community."

Other amendments, as stated in the petition, include an omission of the explicit statutory safeguard in Section 26(1), which protected the personal property of a woman from interference. Section 25, which now introduces a rigid statutory limitation on the share of a woman in matrimonial property by prescribing an upper ceiling.

The petitioner is a woman belonging to the Mizo community who married a non-Mizo man in 1984.

Case Details: Lalsangliani Colney v. State of Mizoram, Law and Judicial Department Principal Secretary

The writ petition has been filed through AoR Pulkit Agarwal