Guwahati: The Supreme Court has allowed a petitioner challenging the constitutional validity of amendments made in 2026 to Mizoram’s law governing marriage, divorce and inheritance to approach the Gauhati High Court instead of pursuing the matter directly before the apex court.
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, declined to entertain the petition at this stage, observing that the issues could appropriately be examined by the jurisdictional High Court.
The bench, however, took note of the petitioner’s apprehension about pursuing the case before the Aizawl Bench of the Gauhati High Court due to the prevailing atmosphere there. The court therefore granted liberty to approach the principal bench of the Gauhati High Court, subject to the approval of the Chief Justice. It also observed that the matter prima facie deserved preferential consideration.
The petition challenges amendments to Sections 2, 3(m), 25 and 26(1) of the Mizo Marriage, Divorce and Inheritance of Property Act, 2014.
The petitioner has alleged that the amended provisions discriminate against Mizo women who marry non-Mizo men. The plea contends that the revised Section 2 effectively applies to marriages where both spouses are Mizo or where the husband is Mizo, potentially excluding Mizo women who marry men from outside the community.
The challenge also targets the amended definition of “Mizo” under Section 3(m), which the petitioner alleges introduces a patrilineal criterion by recognising a person based on birth or whether their father belongs to a Mizo tribe.
According to the petition, the amendments could affect the independent identity of Mizo women and create unequal treatment for children born to Mizo women married to non-Mizo men. It also raises concerns over inheritance, succession, property ownership and community-linked land rights.
The petitioner has further challenged Section 25, which introduces a statutory restriction on a woman’s share in matrimonial property. The plea also objects to changes in Section 26(1), alleging that an explicit safeguard protecting a woman’s personal property from interference has been removed.
The petitioner has argued that the amendments have broader implications for women’s property and inheritance rights, besides affecting access to certain protections associated with Scheduled Tribe status.
The Supreme Court’s order does not determine the constitutional validity of the amended provisions. The substantive challenge will now be taken up before the Gauhati High Court.
The case is Meriam L Hrangchal vs State of Mizoram, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1046/2026.