New Delhi: In a landmark ruling advancing gender equality among Scheduled Tribes, the Supreme Court Thursday held that denying tribal women their right to inherit ancestral property, in the absence of a specific prohibitory custom, is unconstitutional and violates the fundamental right to equality.
The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Joymalya Bagchi added that even if there is a custom that denies women inheritance rights in ancestral property, it should evolve with time to ensure tribal women enjoy equal succession rights.
“Customs too, like the law, cannot remain stuck in time and others cannot be allowed to take refuge in customs or hide behind them to deprive others of their right,” the Court said.
The verdict overturned three lower court decisions to uphold a tribal woman’s inheritance rights, ruling that in the absence of a codified law or specific tribal custom barring female inheritance, Scheduled Tribe women are entitled to equal property rights under the constitutional guarantee of equality.
The case arose from a 1994 inheritance dispute in which the legal heirs of a tribal woman, Dhaiya, sought a share in the property of her maternal grandfather. The male relatives (Dhaiya’s brothers), however, opposed the claim, citing customary practices that allegedly excluded women from succession.
While the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA) does not apply to Scheduled Tribes unless expressly extended by law, the court clarified that this statutory exemption does not automatically exclude tribal women from inheritance. Instead, it must be shown whether a specific and established custom prohibits women from inheriting ancestral property.
In this case, the property partition was denied in 1992, and in 2008 and 2009, both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court ruled that Dhaiya’s mother had no right in the property of her grandfather, as “no evidence had been led to show that children of a female heir are also entitled to property”.
Neither party was able to prove the existence of any binding tribal custom regarding female inheritance. The trial court (2008), appellate court (2009), and Chhattisgarh High Court (2022) all ruled against the appellants, stating that the absence of proof of a custom allowing female inheritance meant women had no right.
The Supreme Court, however, reversed these decisions.
Shifting the burden of proof
The SC held that the lower courts were mistaken in placing the burden of proof on the appellants to establish a custom permitting inheritance by women. Instead, the opposing party should have been required to prove the existence of a prohibitory custom.
The court emphasised that customs, like laws, must evolve with time and cannot be used as a shield to deprive others, especially women, of their legal and constitutional rights.
“Granted that no such custom of female succession could be established by the appellants, but it is equally true that a custom to the contrary also could not be shown. That being the case, denying Dhaiya her share in her father’s property when custom is silent violates her right to equality,” the court said.
Violation of constitutional guarantees
Denying women succession rights in the absence of a prohibitive custom, the Court noted, amounts to discrimination based on sex and violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Indian Constitution. Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and Article 15 prohibits discrimination based on sex, caste, religion or place of birth.
The judgment also drew from Articles 38 and 46 of the Constitution, part of the Directive Principles of State Policy, which require the state to promote social justice and support the interests of disadvantaged groups, including women and Scheduled Tribes.
“There appears to be no rational nexus or reasonable classification for only males to be granted succession over the property of their forebears and not women, more so in the case where no prohibition to such effect can be shown to be prevalent as per law,” the court said.
No act or custom for tribal women’s succession
While acknowledging that the Hindu Succession Act does not govern tribal succession, the SC stressed that in the absence of a codified law or clear custom, courts must apply principles of justice, equity and good conscience to avoid injustice. These principles have statutory recognition in the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875.
“In the present case, a woman or her successors, if the views of the lower Court are upheld, would be denied a right to property on the basis of the absence of a positive assertion to such inheritance in custom. However, customs too, like the law, cannot remain stuck in time and others cannot be allowed to take refuge in customs or hide behind them to deprive others of their right,” the bench said.
“…in keeping with the principles of justice, equity and good conscience, read along with the overarching effect of Article 14 of the Constitution, the appellant-plaintiffs, being Dhaiya’s legal heirs, are entitled to their equal share in the property,” the court’s final paragraph read.
Call for legislative reform
This is not the first time the apex court has flagged the legislative vacuum concerning succession rights for tribal women.
In a December 2024 verdict, the court had urged Parliament to consider amending the Hindu Succession Act to explicitly extend equal inheritance rights to female members of Scheduled Tribes.
The court reiterated this appeal in the present case, stating that continuing to exclude tribal women from intestate succession, even 70 years after the adoption of the Constitution, is untenable and unjust.
A 2022 Supreme Court ruling had similarly stated: “Female tribal is entitled to parity with male tribal in intestate succession. To deny the equal right to the daughter belonging to the tribal even after a period of 70 years of the Constitution of India under which the right to equality is guaranteed, it is high time for the Central Government to look into the matter and if required, to amend the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act by which the Act is not made applicable to the members of the Scheduled Tribes.”
(Edited by Sugita Katyal)