New Delhi: In a historic verdict advancing gender equality, the Supreme Court of India ruled on Thursday, July 17, 2025, that denying tribal women their right to inherit ancestral property is unconstitutional, affirming their equal succession rights under the Indian Constitution. The landmark judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Joymalya Bagchi, overturned three lower court decisions and marked a significant shift in the judiciary’s approach to gender justice within tribal communities. This ruling, stemming from a 1994 inheritance dispute, not only reinforces the constitutional guarantee of equality but also calls for legislative reform to address the absence of codified laws governing tribal succession.
Background of the Case
The case, Ram Charan & Ors. vs. Sukhram & Ors., originated from a 1994 dispute involving the legal heirs of a tribal woman named Dhaiya, who sought an equal share in her maternal grandfather’s ancestral property. Dhaiya’s brothers opposed the claim, citing tribal customs that allegedly excluded women from inheritance. The trial court (2008), appellate court (2009), and Chhattisgarh High Court (2022) dismissed the claim, stating that Dhaiya’s heirs failed to prove a custom permitting female inheritance. The lower courts’ rulings were based on the assumption that, in the absence of evidence supporting female succession, tribal women were automatically excluded from inheritance rights.
The Supreme Court, however, reversed these decisions, criticizing the lower courts for placing the burden of proof on the appellants to establish a custom allowing female inheritance. Instead, the court ruled that the opposing party should have been required to prove the existence of a specific prohibitory custom barring women from inheriting ancestral property.
Key Highlights of the Judgment
The Supreme Court’s verdict emphasized several critical points:
- Constitutional Violations: Denying tribal women inheritance rights based solely on gender violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Indian Constitution. Article 14 guarantees equality before the law, while Article 15 prohibits discrimination based on sex, caste, religion, or place of birth. The court also referenced Articles 38 and 46, part of the Directive Principles of State Policy, which mandate the state to promote social justice and protect disadvantaged groups, including women and Scheduled Tribes.
- Hindu Succession Act Exemption: The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA), does not apply to Scheduled Tribes unless expressly extended by law. However, the court clarified that this exemption does not automatically exclude tribal women from inheritance. In the absence of a codified law or a proven customary bar, courts must apply principles of justice, equity, and good conscience, as recognized under the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875.
- Evolving Customs: The bench, led by Justice Sanjay Karol, underscored that customs, like laws, must evolve with time. “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 stated. Even if a custom denying women inheritance exists, it must adapt to ensure gender equality.
- Burden of Proof: The court criticized the lower courts for requiring Dhaiya’s heirs to prove a custom permitting female succession. Instead, it held that the male relatives opposing the claim should have been required to demonstrate a specific, established custom prohibiting women from inheriting. In this case, neither party could prove the existence of a binding tribal custom, leading the court to rule in favor of equality.
- Precedents Cited: The judgment drew on prior rulings to support its reasoning:
- Mst. Sarwango v. Mst. Urchamahin (2013): Directed inheritance to daughters based on principles of equity.
- Tirith Kumar v. Daduram (2024): Upheld female inheritance rights in tribal property.
- Call for Legislative Reform: The court reiterated its December 2024 appeal urging Parliament to amend the Hindu Succession Act to explicitly extend equal inheritance rights to female members of Scheduled Tribes. The bench emphasized that excluding tribal women from intestate succession, even 70 years after the adoption of the Constitution, is “untenable and unjust.”
Significance of the Ruling
This verdict marks a significant departure from the Supreme Court’s earlier cautious stance on tribal women’s inheritance rights. In a December 2024 ruling, the court had stopped short of granting equal inheritance rights to tribal women, instead urging the central government to consider legislative amendments. The July 17, 2025, judgment goes further, conclusively affirming that tribal women are entitled to equal property rights in the absence of a specific prohibitory custom.
The ruling advances gender justice by challenging patriarchal predispositions often rooted in misinterpretations of tribal customs. The court noted that assuming an exclusionary custom exists without evidence reflects a “patriarchal predisposition” likely drawn from Hindu law, despite its inapplicability to Scheduled Tribes. By shifting the burden of proof to those opposing female inheritance, the court has set a precedent that prioritizes constitutional values over unproven customary practices.
Customs as a Source of Law
Customs are among the oldest sources of law, regulating human behavior and gaining legal recognition when upheld by courts. To be binding, a custom must meet criteria such as reasonableness and morality. However, certain customs, such as Sati, child marriage, and triple talaq, have historically suppressed reason and perpetuated discrimination. The Supreme Court’s ruling underscores that customs must evolve to align with constitutional principles, particularly when they discriminate against women.
In this case, the court emphasized that the absence of a custom explicitly allowing female succession does not justify denying women their rights. Instead, courts must presume inclusion unless a clear, prohibitive custom is proven. This approach ensures that tribal women are not arbitrarily deprived of their constitutional entitlements.
Details of the 1994 Dispute
The case originated in 1994 when Dhaiya’s legal heirs sought a share in her maternal grandfather’s property. The partition was initially denied in 1992, and subsequent rulings by the trial court (2008) and appellate court (2009) upheld the denial, stating that “no evidence had been led to show that children of a female heir are also entitled to property.” The Chhattisgarh High Court (2022) similarly ruled against the appellants, citing the lack of proof of a custom permitting female inheritance.
The Supreme Court, however, found these rulings flawed. It noted that the lower courts’ assumption of an exclusionary custom was baseless, as no evidence of such a custom was presented. The court’s decision to grant Dhaiya’s heirs an equal share in the property was grounded in the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience, read alongside Article 14’s guarantee of equality.
Constitutional and Legal Framework
The court’s judgment is rooted in a robust constitutional framework:
- Article 14: Ensures equality before the law, prohibiting arbitrary discrimination.
- Article 15(1): Prohibits discrimination based on sex, among other grounds.
- Articles 38 and 46: Mandate the state to promote social justice and protect marginalized groups, including women and Scheduled Tribes.
The court also referenced the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875, which provides for the application of justice, equity, and good conscience in the absence of codified law or custom. This principle was pivotal in the court’s decision to grant Dhaiya’s heirs their rightful share.
Broader Implications
The verdict has far-reaching implications for gender equality in tribal communities, particularly in the absence of codified personal laws. By clarifying that the Hindu Succession Act’s exclusion of Scheduled Tribes does not inherently deny women inheritance rights, the court has addressed a legislative vacuum that has long perpetuated inequality. The ruling also sets a precedent for future cases, ensuring that courts prioritize constitutional guarantees over unproven customs.
The Supreme Court’s call for legislative reform underscores the need for Parliament to address the exclusion of tribal women from the Hindu Succession Act. A 2022 ruling had similarly urged the central government to amend the Act to ensure parity between tribal and non-tribal daughters, a recommendation reiterated in this judgment.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling on July 17, 2025, is a landmark victory for gender equality, affirming that tribal women and their legal heirs are entitled to equal inheritance rights in ancestral property. By overturning lower court decisions and challenging patriarchal customs, the court has reinforced the constitutional guarantee of equality under Articles 14 and 15. The verdict also highlights the need for legislative reform to codify inheritance rights for tribal women, ensuring that constitutional values prevail over outdated customs. As India moves toward greater gender equity, this judgment serves as a beacon of hope for marginalized communities, signaling that the law must evolve to uphold justice and equality for all.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
1. What was the Supreme Court’s ruling on tribal women’s inheritance rights on July 17, 2025?
The Supreme Court ruled that denying tribal women or their legal heirs a share in ancestral property based solely on gender is unconstitutional and violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Indian Constitution. In the case of Ram Charan & Ors. vs. Sukhram & Ors., the court held that tribal women are entitled to equal inheritance rights unless a specific, proven customary bar prohibits it. The verdict overturned three lower court decisions and emphasized that customs must evolve to ensure gender equality.
2. Why doesn’t the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, apply to Scheduled Tribes, and how does this affect the ruling?
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA), explicitly excludes Scheduled Tribes from its ambit under Section 2(2) unless extended by law. However, the Supreme Court clarified that this exemption does not automatically exclude tribal women from inheritance. In the absence of a codified law or a proven prohibitory custom, courts must apply principles of justice, equity, and good conscience, ensuring tribal women’s equal rights to ancestral property under constitutional guarantees.
3. What was the role of the burden of proof in this case?
The Supreme Court criticized lower courts for placing the burden on the appellants (Dhaiya’s heirs) to prove a custom allowing female inheritance. Instead, the court ruled that the opposing party (male relatives) should have been required to prove a specific custom prohibiting women from inheriting. Since neither party could establish a binding custom, the court upheld the appellants’ right to an equal share, citing constitutional principles of equality.
4. How does this ruling address the evolution of customs?
The court emphasized that customs, like laws, must evolve with time to align with constitutional values. Justice Sanjay Karol noted, “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.” This approach ensures that discriminatory practices, such as denying women inheritance, are not perpetuated under the guise of tradition.
5. What broader implications does this verdict have for tribal women and legislative reform?
The ruling advances gender justice by affirming tribal women’s equal inheritance rights, challenging patriarchal customs, and setting a precedent for future cases. It also reiterated a December 2024 call for Parliament to amend the Hindu Succession Act to explicitly include tribal women, addressing the legislative vacuum that has excluded them from intestate succession for over 70 years. This verdict highlights the need for codified laws to ensure consistent application of gender equality in tribal communities.
