Hindu Succession Act Doesn’t Apply to Scheduled Tribes: Supreme Court Sets Aside Himachal Pradesh High Court’s Direction on Daughters’ Inheritance in Tribal Areas
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra held that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 does not extend to members of Scheduled Tribes. The Court set aside a direction issued by the Himachal Pradesh High Court, which had directed that daughters in tribal areas of the State would inherit property under the Act rather than through customary law. The Bench stated that the exclusion under Section 2(2) of the Act bars its application to Scheduled Tribes and that such a direction could not arise in a matter where the issue of tribal inheritance was not before the Court.
The civil appeal arose from a judgment and order dated 23 June 2015 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla. The appellants challenged a specific direction issued in paragraph 63 of that judgment, which stated that daughters in the tribal areas of Himachal Pradesh shall inherit property in accordance with the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and not under customary tribal laws. The High Court had reasoned that such an interpretation was necessary to prevent social injustice and ensure equality.
The appellants contended before the Supreme Court that the High Court’s observations were beyond the scope of the issues framed in the appeal before it. They argued that the matter before the High Court did not involve any claim or question of inheritance rights under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and therefore, such directions could not have been issued. The dispute itself arose from a civil proceeding between private parties and did not concern the broader question of application of the Act to Scheduled Tribes.
The respondents did not produce any notification showing that the Sawara tribe had been de-notified from the list of Scheduled Tribes under Article 342 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court considered the scope of Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which provides that the Act does not apply to members of Scheduled Tribes unless the Central Government directs otherwise by notification in the Official Gazette.
The Bench recorded that “the HSA, 1956, at the very outset, details as to whom the legislation would apply, and it clearly states that Scheduled Castes and Tribes shall be outside its purview of application.” Referring to Section 2(2) of the Act, the Court noted, “The words of the section are explicit. The HSA, 1956, cannot apply to Scheduled Tribes. This position of law is well settled.”
Citing its earlier decision in Tirith Kumar & Ors. v. Daduram & Ors., the Court observed that “for a tribe to be notified as a Scheduled Tribe, a notification to that effect has to be issued and vice versa, i.e., for a tribe to be de-notified as well.” It recorded that the High Court had itself noted the absence of any such notification showing that the Sawara tribe was de-notified.
The judgment further stated, “Hence, more so, in view of the provisions of Section 2 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, no such directions… could have been issued by the High Court, more so in a case where the issue was neither directly nor substantially involved in the intra-party appeal.”
The Court also referred to precedents including Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar and Ahmedabad Women Action Group v. Union of India, noting that the legal position excluding Scheduled Tribes from the operation of the Act has been consistently recognized. The Bench recorded that the High Court’s observations did not emanate from the issues framed or pleas raised by the parties in the proceedings.
The Supreme Court stated that in view of the provisions of Section 2 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the directions issued by the High Court could not have been sustained as they did not arise from any issue framed or plea raised by the parties. Accordingly, it ordered that “paragraph 63 of the impugned judgment/order dated 23.06.2015 containing directions are set aside to be expunged from the record.” The Court further directed that “the Civil Appeal is disposed of with the above directions. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Advocate; Mr. Harpreet Singh, Advocate; Mr. Sumit R. Sharma, AOR
Amicus Curiae: Ms. Rebecca Mishra
Case Title: Nawang & Anr. v. Bahadur & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 4980 of 2017
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
