Supreme Court Upholds Tribal Woman's Inheritance Rights; Urges Parliament To Extend Hindu Succession Act To Scheduled Tribes

The Supreme Court today (Dec. 19) again urged the Parliament to look into pathways to secure the right of survivorship to female Tribals by making necessary amendments to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (“HSA”).

The Court referred to the Kamla Neti v. LAO (2023) judgment where it was noted that “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 Hindu Succession Act is not made applicable to the members of the Scheduled Tribe.”

A bench consisting of Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol was hearing an appeal challenging the decision of the Chhattisgarh High Court, which granted property rights to the respondents (tribal women) from the 'Sawara Tribe', a notified scheduled tribe under Article 342 of the Constitution.

The Appellant contended that since the Respondent's father died before 1956, therefore, they had no inheritance rights.

Rejecting the Appellant's argument, the High Court invoked the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience to extend the survivorship benefit under the Hindu Succession Act (HSA) to the Respondent despite noting that HSA does not apply to members of the Scheduled Tribe.

Affirming the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Karol justified the High Court's reliance on the Central Provinces Laws Act 1875, which allows principles of justice, equity, and good conscience to fill gaps in tribal succession laws.

The Court referred to the case of dissenting opinion of Madhu Kishwar & Ors. v. State of Bihar (1998) and other cases to highlight that courts can adopt equitable principles to promote fairness, especially for female descendants.

In Madhu Kishwar, Ramaswamy, J. observed:

“I would hold that the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the Indian Succession Act, 1925 though in terms, would not apply to the Scheduled Tribes, the general principles contained therein being consistent with justice, equity, fairness, justness and good conscience would apply to them. Accordingly I hold that the Scheduled Tribe women would succeed to the estate of their parent, brother, husband, as heirs by intestate succession and inherit the property with equal share with the male heir with absolute rights as per the general principles of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended and interpreted by this Court and equally of the Indian Succession Act to tribal Christians…”

“Having considered the pronouncements of this Court as aforesaid, and keeping in view the fact that Mardan passed away in the year 1951, that is, prior to the enactment of HSA, 1956, we find no error in the judgment of the High Court applying the provisions of the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875 and more particularly Section 6 thereof which postulates the application of the principle of justice, equity and good conscience, to account for possibilities not covered by Section 5 of the Act (HSA).”, the Court said.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Satish Pandey, AOR Mr. Mahesh Kumar Tiwari, Adv. Ms. Nishi Prabha Singh, Adv. Ms. Jay Jaimini Pandey, Adv. Ms. Ayushi Pandey, Adv. Ms. Lalita Gupta, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Vijay Lakshmi, Adv. Mr. Braj Kishore Mishra, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Rajeev Kumar Bansal, AOR Mr. Parvinder, Adv. Mr. Manish Das, Adv. Mr. Mukul Biswas, Adv. Mr. Vidya Sagar, Adv. Mr. Arun Kumar Arunachal, Adv. Mr. Arjun D Singh, Adv. Ms. Ankita Sharma, AOR

Case Title: TIRITH KUMAR & ORS. VERSUS DADURAM & ORS.

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1020

Click here to read/download the judgment