2 months ago
1
The question of women’s inheritance rights successful tribal communities remains unresolved. Customary laws of astir tribal communities contradict implicit spot rights to their women, and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which grants daughters inheritance rights successful ancestral property, keeps tribal women retired of its purview. Until recently, however, the Supreme Court had successful immoderate cases granted inheritance rights to tribal women who had ‘Hinduised’, i.e., adopted Hindu customs and traditions aft abandoning their customary practices. This inconsistent attack — excluding tribal women from inheritance rights successful immoderate cases owed to the acceptance of exclusion clauses nether Hindu laws, portion granting rights successful others due to the fact that of ‘Hinduisation’ — created uncertainty for tribal women whenever questions of inheritance arose.
Reaffirming an aged principle
This came to an extremity when, connected October 8, 2025, the Court delivered a verdict, upholding the halfway inheritance provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra stated that the Act cannot beryllium applied to Scheduled Tribes nether immoderate circumstances. While this reflection was not new, it reaffirmed the law’s rule of providing peculiar extortion to indigenous communities nether the ineligible system.
The verdict was fixed successful the lawsuit of Nawang v. Bahadur. The civilian entreaty challenged the bid dated June 23, 2015, passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh astatine Shimla, pertaining to a peculiar spot case. The High Court had said that tribal daughters who had been ‘Hinduised’ ought to person an accidental to inherit spot nether the Hindu Succession Act. The Supreme Court overturned that bid stating that lone Parliament had the authorization to widen the Act to tribal communities. The Court brought to airy the information that the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction by directing legislative changes. It affirmed that tribal inheritance falls nether the rubric of the customary practices of communities unless the Central authorities officially intervenes.
The Supreme Court’s determination came conscionable months aft it recognised, successful Ram Charan v. Sukhram, that excluding daughters from ancestral spot violates their cardinal close to equality. It invites not lone heavy analysis, but besides partially answers definite questions. Is ‘Hinduising’ a people the lone mode to unafraid inheritance rights for tribal women? Should Scheduled Tribes beryllium granted inheritance rights solely connected the ground of religion, disregarding their unsocial societal and taste characteristics? Can they not beryllium fixed adjacent inheritance rights by expanding immoderate different statute? Or, successful the lack of accordant statutory and customary instrumentality guaranteeing tribal women inheritance rights, should tribal women proceed to look favoritism nether the pretext of upholding tradition?
Defining Hindu
On defining the word ‘Hindu’, the Supreme Court, successful Sastri Yagnapurushadji v. Muldas Brudardas Vaishya (1966), said that “unlike different religions successful the world, the Hindu religion does not assertion immoderate 1 prophet, it does not worship immoderate 1 God, it does not subscribe to immoderate 1 dogma, it does not judge successful immoderate 1 philosophic concept, it does not travel immoderate 1 acceptable of spiritual rites oregon performances, successful fact, it does not look to fulfill the constrictive accepted features of immoderate religion oregon creed. It whitethorn broadly beryllium described arsenic a mode of beingness and thing more”. A idiosyncratic tin beryllium a Hindu either by commencement oregon by conversion. Conversion means a bonafide volition to travel a peculiar religion with an unequivocal behaviour expressing capable grounds of conversion. A converted idiosyncratic continues to beryllium a subordinate of the people unless his ancestors had converted agelong clip agone and person stopped pursuing tribal customs including the customary laws of inheritance and marriage, arsenic are expected of the members of that tribe.
This judgement of the Supreme Court raises a question. Was not the earlier signifier of ‘Hinduisation’ of tribal radical a negation of the law warrant to support the unsocial individuality of tribal people? The ruling affirms the law validity of Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, which excludes Scheduled Tribes from the Act. This proviso had antecedently been challenged connected the grounds that it created invidious favoritism betwixt women belonging to Scheduled Tribes and those extracurricular the category.
Earlier, the courts utilized to broaden the scope of Section 2(1) of the Hindu Succession Act to see Scheduled Tribes by holding that since they are not expressly excluded nether the section, they would beryllium included wrong the explanation of ‘Hindu’ nether Section 2(1) of the Act. This is not lone contrary to Section 2(2), which states that notwithstanding thing to the contrary successful Section 2(1), nary provisions of the Act shall use to notified Scheduled Tribes, but was besides utilized to unit tribal women to take betwixt their tribal individuality and becoming followers of Hinduism.
An opportunity
Now that the Supreme Court has stated that the Act cannot beryllium extended to tribal radical irrespective of their spiritual allegiance, it would beryllium omniscient to present a peculiar enactment governing inheritance rights among the indigenous population. Codifying customary laws of succession successful different States with important tribal populations connected the lines of Mizoram could supply a solution to guarantee sex parity portion preserving tribal identity.
