New Delhi: The Supreme Court has invoked an 1875 law to grant succession rights to three Scheduled Tribe (ST) women who have been engaged in a legal battle since 1995 with their cousins over their share of their father’s property.
The judgment is significant because there is no specific law governing intestate succession among STs, who are also excluded from the provisions of The Hindu Succession Act (HSA), 1956. The HSA entitles a non-tribal daughter in a Hindu family to an equal share in her father’s property, just like her brother.
In its ruling, a bench led by Justice C.T. Ravikumar applied the principle of “justice, equity and good conscience”, extending the provisions of the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875 to the case. This resulted in granting a portion of the father’s property to the women, while ensuring that the other descendants also received their rightful share.
The top court dismissed an appeal filed by their cousins, upholding the Chhattisgarh High Court’s decision which had previously ruled in favour of the women.
Recognising that a tribal woman should have the same rights as a non-tribal woman in succession matters, the bench urged the Centre to consider “pathways” to secure their survivorship rights.
It reiterated the recommendations made in a 2023 Supreme Court ruling, which “directed” the Centre to reconsider the exemptions under the HSA, specifically its applicability to the ST community. This 2023 decision also called on the government to amend the law in line with Articles 14 (right to equality) and 21 (right to live with dignity) of the Constitution.
Against the backdrop of this decision, ThePrint explains the Central Provinces Laws Act, the exemption of STs from the HSA, and how the Supreme Court has applied the former to confer inheritance rights on the three women.
Also Read: Gyanvapi to Sambhal & Ajmer Sharif, SC order on Places of Worship Act likely to impact 11 sites
What the case is about
The case originates from a property dispute in Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, over land that originally belonged to Chuchrung. In 1995, Chuchrung’s grandsons from the younger son filed a suit for a declaration, claiming full ownership of their uncle’s property on the grounds that his three daughters had no inheritance rights.
Although the family belonged to the ST community, the petitioners sought relief under Hindu personal law rather than customary tribal law, arguing that they had abandoned the customs of their tribal community and adopted Hindu principles of law.
In their suit, Chuchrung’s grandsons claimed a stake in his entire 13.95-acre property, including the portion inherited by their uncle. They argued that since their uncle had died in 1951, before the HSA came into effect in 1956, any right he had in their grandfather’s property would not have been transferred to the cousins.
They contended that, according to the personal law in force in 1951, the uncle’s share would have passed to their father and, subsequently, to them. This argument was based on the fact that, before the HSA, Hindu women did not have any right to claim a share in their father’s property.
In December 2000, the trial court ruled in favour of Chuchrung’s grandsons, a decision which was challenged before the first appellate court. In January 2003, the appellate court upheld the ruling, observing that the family had become “sufficiently Hinduised” and, therefore, was governed by Hindu law, which granted the grandsons rights over their uncle’s property.
Challenging the findings, the three women, who were Chuchrung’s granddaughters from the first son, approached the Chhattisgarh High Court. Sixteen years later, the high court overturned the lower court’s decision, rejecting the argument that the family was not governed by the customary rights of their tribal community. As far as the HSA was concerned, the HC ruled that it did not apply to the parties, as they belonged to a notified Scheduled Tribe, and there was no notification to de-notify them.
The HSA
The HSA is a personal law applicable to Hindus, but Section 2 of the Act exempts Scheduled Castes and Tribes from its purview. This exemption was affirmed by the Supreme Court in its 1996 judgment in the Madhu Kishwar versus Bihar case.
“Sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the Hindu Succession Act significantly provides that nothing contained in the Act shall apply to the members of any Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of clause (25) of Article 366 of the Constitution unless otherwise directed by the Central Government by means of a notification in the Official Gazette,” the bench had stated in that case.
Article 366(25) of the Constitution defines Scheduled Tribes as those communities deemed under Article 341, which grants the President the power to specify which tribes or communities are classified as STs.
The high court then invoked the Central Provinces Laws Act to grant relief to the three women. Enacted during the British era, this 1875 law made provisions for amending and declaring certain laws in the central provinces. The enactments specified in the schedule annexed to the law were deemed to be in force on the date the Act came into effect.
Section 5 of this law declared that matters relating to inheritance, special property of females, marriage, adoption, guardianship and other family matters should be determined according to personal laws. However, Section 6 of the Act allows courts to act according to “justice, equity and good conscience” in cases not covered under Section 5.
The high court granted relief to the women and other descendants, drawing upon the dissenting opinion in the Madhu Kishwar case by Justice Ramaswamy, who supported the idea of granting succession rights to ST women in intestate succession, based on general principles contained in the HSA and the Indian Succession Act.
Further elaborating on this principle, the Supreme Court referenced the five-judge bench decision in the Ram Janmabhoomi case, which discussed the concept of “justice, equity and good conscience”. In the absence of positive law, the judgment stated, courts should turn to equity, which should play a primary role as a source of law.
Regarding the inheritance rights of tribal women, the bench quoted the 2023 suggestion, stating: “Before parting, we may observe that there may not be any justification to deny the right of survivorship so far as the female member of the tribal community is concerned. When the daughter belonging to the non-tribal community is entitled to the equal share in the property of the father, there is no reason to deny such a right to the daughter of the Tribal community. Female tribal is entitled to parity with male tribal in intestate succession.”
It is high time for the central government to review the fact that tribal women are denied equal rights even after a period of 70 years of the Constitution, the SC said. “…if required, to amend the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act by which the Hindu Succession Act is not made applicable to the members of the Scheduled Tribe.”
(Edited by Radifah Kabir)
Also Read: What happens to cash seized in income tax raids? A look as Congress MP-linked ‘Rs 350cr’ op goes on