Supreme Court ने Section 25, Hindu Succession Act के तहत हत्या के आरोपी को संपत्ति विरासत में लेने से रोका

Key Insight

Supreme Court ने Section 25 के तहत हत्या के आरोपी को संपत्ति विरासत में लेने से रोका, ‘गलत कार्य से लाभ नहीं’ को सुदृढ़ किया

Key Facts

1. Supreme Court, in Manjula & Others v. D.A. Srinivas (2026), upheld Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, barring a murder accused from inheriting property.
2. Section 25 disqualifies any person who commits or abets murder of the owner from acquiring the deceased's property, whether intestate or testamentary.
3. The bar is triggered on a civil standard – pre‑ponderance of probabilities – not on a criminal conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
4. The plaintiff, alleged CBI‑investigated murder accused of K. Raghunath, suppressed material facts, leading to the bar.
5. The judgment invoked the maxim ex turpi causa non oritur actio, reinforcing that a wrongdoer cannot profit from his own misconduct.
6. Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC was cited, emphasizing the right to be heard can be vitiated by non‑disclosure of material facts.

Background

Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, sits at the intersection of personal law and criminal conduct, reflecting the State's policy that a person who unlawfully deprives another of life cannot benefit from that victim's estate. The Supreme Court's interpretation aligns with the broader constitutional principle of equality before law and the ethical tenet that public policy must prevent unjust enrichment.

UPSC Syllabus

• Prelims_GS — Constitution and Political System
• GS4 — Work culture, quality of service delivery, utilization of public funds, corruption
• GS2 — Executive and Judiciary - structure, organization and functioning
• GS4 — Concept of public service, philosophical basis of governance and probity
• Essay — Democracy, Governance and Public Administration

Mains Angle

GS 2 – Polity: Discuss how the Supreme Court’s civil‑standard approach under Section 25 balances individual rights with the policy of preventing wrongdoers from profiting, and evaluate the need for legislative clarification.