Historic Supreme Court ruling grants tribal women equal right to inherit property

By Raj Kumar Sinha* 

The Supreme Court of India has delivered a landmark judgment declaring that denying tribal women inheritance rights solely based on gender is unconstitutional. The court affirmed their equal right to ancestral property, stating that refusing a share in such property to a tribal woman or her legal heirs on the basis of sex is both unjust and unconstitutional.

This verdict overturns a long-standing belief that customary laws restricting women’s inheritance should prevail unless proven otherwise. Although the Hindu Succession Act (HSA), 1956, does not apply to Scheduled Tribes (STs), the court clarified that this exclusion cannot be interpreted to mean that tribal women have no inheritance rights. The bench emphasized that equality must be upheld unless a specific customary restriction is clearly proven.

The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Joymalya Bagchi in a case involving a woman from a Scheduled Tribe in Chhattisgarh. The woman’s legal heirs had claimed a share in her maternal grandfather’s property, which was opposed by male family members who argued that tribal customs deny women inheritance rights. While lower courts, including the Chhattisgarh High Court, had dismissed the petition, the Supreme Court reversed those rulings, confirming equal inheritance rights for women in tribal communities.

Criticizing the approach of the lower courts, the apex court held that it was erroneous to place the burden of proving a custom that allows women to inherit property. Instead, it is the responsibility of those denying the rights to prove the existence of a custom that restricts women’s inheritance.

The bench stated that excluding women from inheritance, including those involved in this case, is both unfair and discriminatory. The court added that the burden lies on those opposing inheritance rights to demonstrate the presence of a valid customary law that restricts such rights. Dismissing earlier judgments, the court firmly asserted that “keeping in view the principles of justice, equality, and good conscience, and with the broad impact of Article 14 of the Constitution, the appellant-plaintiffs are entitled to an equal share in the property.” Article 14 guarantees equality before the law, while Article 15 prohibits discrimination based on religion, caste, sex, race, or place of birth.

This ruling holds wider significance as it re-examines and reinforces the discourse on gender justice within tribal communities—especially in the absence of codified personal laws. While Section 2(2) of the HSA excludes Scheduled Tribes from its ambit unless otherwise notified by the central government, the Supreme Court has now clarified that such statutory silence cannot be a basis for institutional inequality.

In 2022, a bench comprising Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Krishna Murari, in the case Kamla Neti vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, delivered another crucial verdict on tribal women’s property rights. They urged the central government to amend the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, to grant equal property rights to tribal women. The court’s stance made it clear that it supports equal property rights for tribal women at par with men.

It is notable that in its December 2024 judgment, the Supreme Court had refrained from granting tribal women equal inheritance rights. However, the present verdict marks a significant shift.

Commenting on the judgment, Vijay Bhai of the Bharat Jan Andolan said the court, while interpreting the relationship between tradition and fundamental rights (which form part of the Constitution’s basic structure), rightly prioritized fundamental rights. He emphasized that any tradition that contradicts fundamental rights must be rejected. Vijay Bhai argued that when speaking of tribal traditions, the emphasis must be on elements of equality, collectivity, and, above all, direct democracy. 

Citing Article 13 of the Constitution—which invalidates any law or custom violating fundamental rights—he pointed out how some tribal customs have been criticized for undermining the economic and social freedom of tribal women. Yet, in many respects, tribal communities exhibit greater openness than others. This Supreme Court verdict emerges as a ray of light amidst prevailing darkness and is expected to stir conversations and change within tribal society.

---

*Bargi Dam Displaced and Affected Union