Why did Supreme Court say Scheduled Tribes women cannot inherit property under Hindu Succession Act

Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court has once again said that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA) does not extend to members of Scheduled Tribes.

In an order dated October 8 seen by Moneycontrol, a bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra overturned a direction by the Himachal Pradesh High Court that had allowed daughters from tribal regions in the State to inherit property under the Hindu Succession Act and not their customary tribal practices.

The top court clarified that this direction conflicted with Section 2(2) of the HSA, which expressly states that Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes are outside its purview.

Section 2(2) of the HSA reads, “Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the members of any Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of clause (25) of Article 366 of the Constitution unless the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, otherwise directs.”

The case stemmed from a 2015 Himachal Pradesh High Court decision, which, while resolving a second appeal, took it upon itself, to declare that daughters in the state's tribal belts should fall under the ambit of the HSA “to prevent social injustice and exploitation.”

However, the Supreme Court found that the High Court’s sweeping direction -- specifically paragraph 63 of its judgment -- was issued without the matter having been raised or argued before it.

The apex court said such an instruction “could not have been issued” when the issue “was neither directly nor substantially involved in the intra-party appeal,” and when it did not arise “from any one of the issues framed by the Court or pleas raised/agitated by the parties.”

In paragraph 63 of the High Court judgment, it had been observed that daughters in tribal areas in Himachal Pradesh can inherit the property in accordance with the HSA and not as per customary practices, adding that this was meant "to prevent the women from social injustice and all forms of exploitation."

The Himachal Pradesh HC had noted that the laws must evolve with the times if societies are to progress, stressing that such observations were only restricted to inheritance rights and did not extend to other privileges.

"It is made clear by way of abundant precaution that the observations made hereinabove only pertain to right to inherit the property by the daughters under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and not any other privileges enjoined by the trial in the tribal areas," the HC order had said in that paragraph.

Referring to its earlier pronouncement in Tirith Kumar & Ors. v. Daduram & Ors. (2024), the Supreme Court, however said, that Scheduled Tribe members are “expressly excluded from the purview of the HSA.”

In that ruling, the Court had also directed the Central government to consider bringing Scheduled Tribes within the ambit of the Act, referring to the Kamla Neti v. LAO (2023) judgment.

In the Kamla Neti (2023) judgment, the court had observed 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 Act is not made applicable to the members of the Scheduled Tribe."

The Court had said that there may not be any justification to deny the right of survivorship to female member of the tribal communities.

"When the daughter belonging to the non-tribal community is entitled to the equal share in the property of the father, there is no reason to deny such right to the daughter of the Tribal community," the Court had observed.

It had said that the female tribal members are entitled to parity with male tribal in intestate succession.