A writ petition has been filed before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Mizo Marriage and Inheritance of Property (Amendment) Act, 2026, alleging that the amended law institutionalises a patrilineal framework that discriminates against Mizo women marrying outside the community and adversely affects the identity and legal rights of their children.
Filed by petitioner Lalsangliani Colney under Article 32 of the Constitution, the plea challenges amendments made to Sections 2, 3(m), 25 and 26(1) of the Mizo Marriage, Divorce and Inheritance of Property Act, 2014. The petition contends that while the 2014 law applied to all persons belonging to a Mizo tribe, the amended framework now restricts applicability to marriages where both spouses are Mizo or where only the male spouse belongs to a Mizo tribe.
According to the plea, the amendment effectively excludes Mizo women who marry non-Mizo men from the statutory framework governing marriage, divorce, maintenance, custody, matrimonial property and inheritance, while continuing to extend protection to Mizo men marrying outside the community.
The petition further challenges the amended definition of “Mizo” under Section 3(m), which now recognises individuals by birth or through paternal lineage, alleging that it introduces a strictly patrilineal standard and undermines the independent identity of Mizo women. It argues that children born to Mizo women marrying non-Mizo men are denied equal recognition and statutory protections available to children of Mizo men in similar inter-community marriages.
The plea also raises concerns regarding proprietary and inheritance rights, stating that the amendments create uncertainty over landholding, succession and community-linked property rights enjoyed by Mizo women within the protected tribal framework of Mizoram.
Additionally, the petition challenges the omission of statutory protection previously available to women’s personal property under Section 26(1) and the introduction of a ceiling limiting a woman’s share in matrimonial property to 50 percent under Section 25.
Drafting Counsels:
Ms Helen Lalthanpari and Mr Prerak Khurana