In a landmark rjudgement, the Supreme Court of India in Tirith Kumar & Ors. v. Daduram & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 13516 of 2024) reaffirmed the inheritance rights of women from Scheduled Tribes while urging Parliament to amend the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA) to address longstanding gender disparities in tribal property rights. Delivered by a Bench comprising Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol, the judgment emphasizes the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience in the absence of statutory provisions governing tribal inheritance.

The case involved a dispute over 13.95 acres of agricultural land in Bagri Pali village, Chhattisgarh, originally owned by Mardan, a tribal man who died in 1951, prior to the enactment of the HSA. The appellants argued that the respondents, Mardan's daughters and their legal heirs, could not claim inheritance rights under the pre-HSA legal framework, which did not grant property rights to daughters.

The lower courts, including the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, ruled in favor of the appellants, holding that the tribal community in question had adopted Hindu customs and were thus governed by Hindu law. However, the High Court reversed these findings, noting that the Sawara tribe remains a notified Scheduled Tribe under Article 342 of the Constitution, thereby exempting them from the application of the HSA unless specifically directed by a Central Government notification under Section 2(2) of the Act.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, invoking Section 6 of the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875, which allows for the application of principles of justice, equity, and good conscience in cases where statutory law is silent.

"The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, clearly states that it does not apply to Scheduled Tribes unless directed otherwise by a Central Government notification," observed Justice Sanjay Karol, reinforcing the constitutional safeguards under Articles 341 and 342.

The judgment heavily cited prior decisions such as Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar (1996), where Justice Ramaswamy emphasized that while statutory provisions may not explicitly apply to Scheduled Tribes, the principles of fairness and equity inherent in these laws should guide judicial decisions.

"Law is the manifestation of principles of justice, equity, and good conscience. Rule of law should establish a uniform pattern for harmonious existence in a society where every individual exercises their rights to their best advantage," the Court quoted from Madhu Kishwar.

The Court also reflected on its observations in Kamla Neti v. LAO (2023), where it urged the government to rectify the historical exclusion of tribal women from property rights. Justice Karol reiterated, "Denying equal inheritance rights to tribal women contradicts the constitutional guarantee of equality under Articles 14 and 21. It is time for Parliament to act decisively."

In its judgment, the Supreme Court stated the urgent need for legislative reforms to address the gender inequality embedded in tribal inheritance laws. It called upon the Central Government to amend the HSA to include Scheduled Tribes, aligning property rights with constitutional principles of equality.

"When the daughter of a non-tribal community is entitled to an equal share in her father's property, there is no justification for denying the same to the daughter of a tribal family," the Bench emphasized, urging Parliament to harmonize tribal laws with the right to equality guaranteed by the Constitution.

Case Title: Tirith Kumar & Ors. v. Daduram & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 13516 of 2024
Bench Details: Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol