Redefining Tribal Female Inheritance via the Supreme Court’s Landmark Decision
- Ayush Kumar
- Sep 29
- 4 min read
Authored by Sanighdha, Junior Research Fellow (UGC JRF) at the Department of Laws, Punjab University, Chandigarh
Unless otherwise prescribed in law, denying the female heir a right in the property only exacerbates gender division and discrimination, which the law should ensure to weed out.
- The Supreme Court of India
In a recent landmark and socially revamping judgment of the Supreme Court of India, the Hon’ble Apex Court has declared that, “excluding female heirs from inheritance is discriminatory, even for the tribal societies, when no law otherwise has been formulated for governance.” Hon’ble presiding Division Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Joymala Bagchi minced no words in stating that, in view of the principles of natural justice, equity, and good conscience, it would be highly discriminatory and blatantly unconstitutional to deprive a female tribal of her rights of inheritance in the family property.
This sets the tune for a major legal overhaul of the Indian judicial and legal system, whereby even tribal communities, which are excluded from the rules of succession law, will be given the benefit of succession rights provided to females, when no law otherwise is in operation. However, to actually understand the whole factual matrix of the situation, it is pertinent to first analyse the constitutional dynamics of the nation, the succession laws (particularly, Hindu laws, in this matter), and the correlation between both of them, to establish a better understanding of the situation.
Within the confines of constitutional morality and the constitutional strictures, it is mandated that every citizen of the Indian territory is equal, both in terms of equality and equity, and is free from non-discrimination, bias, and prejudice, which are to be practised by all in India. Transformative Constitutionalism, thus, along with originalism and living constitutionalism, forms a paramount cardinal principle of governance of rights in India, leading to the grant of equal inheritance rights to both males and females, as well as to tribal and non-tribal individuals.
Scheduled Tribes are defined under Article 366 (25) of the Indian Constitution, and these tribes are declared as Scheduled Tribes under the Indian Constitution, because of a reason. The reason is that these communities of tribes have a whole different set of ethics, morals, principles, customs, rituals, traditions, et, and find it quite a task to adjust with others in the society.
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, particularly deals with succession and inheritance rights of Hindus in India. Section 2 of the said Act deals with the applicability of the law on Hindus and the scope of the Act. However, it specifically excludes and statutorily states that the Scheduled Tribes, as per Article 342, are excluded from the application of the Act. This actually leaves tribal communities of India with no law of inheritance governance, until and unless their own community makes a law for the said purpose. The noteworthy issue in the present case arose form the disputable judgment of the Chattisgarh High Court, whereby the short question involved in the appeal was whether or not a tribal women (or her legal heirs) would be entitled to an equal share in her ancestral property or not. At the outset, the Supreme Court at this point noted that, “in this day and age, where great strides have been made in realizing the constitutional goal of equality, this Court would not need to intervene for equality between the successors of a common ancestor and the same should be a given, irrespective of their biological differences, but it is not so.” This, particularly, sets the stage for a landmark judgement, as it is.
The Apex Court was quick to remark that even though no custom existed, the courts concerned must always take positive presumption, in favour of the person aggrieved, in this case, a female tribal claiming inheritance in the property of her father (through her legal heirs). The court in its judgment remarked that, “apart from the application of this general principle, we also find this to be a question of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 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. Article 15(1) states that the State shall not discriminate against any person on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.” Even though Hindu females were accorded the right to inherit property (in accordance with the succession laws) in 2005 (the Amendment Act), tribal females were still not covered in its ambit because of the exclusion of their community from the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. This definitely compounded the problems of the appellants in the present case, as was also noted down by the Apex Court.
In the light of aforementioned factual matrix, it is quite evident that denying the right to claim inheritance to a female tribal community member, will not be taken in good light by the Apex Court and that the females must be given the aforementioned right, even though tribal communities are not covered under the scope of the Hindu succession law, and are specifically excluded from the same. This exclusion from the Hindu Succession Act was proving to be a hard nut to crack for all the courts. However, the Supreme Court, while clearing the air of all doubts, advanced the basic principles of constitutionalism and grievance redressal. Justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done. What is justice, if not the practical application of justness and rationality? In any case, the Supreme Court has advanced the tenets of feminist jurisprudence, transformative constitutionalism, and living constitutionalism. Females of tribal society, thus, have finally attained the status of equivalent inheritors in disputes regarding family property partition. This will, in the long run, definitely aid in achieving women's empowerment, equitable growth, and national development and progress, whereby tribal communities will be integrated into mainstream society for collective, harmonious development.