The Supreme Court upholds Adivasi women’s ancestral property rights, emphasizing that equality is not a custom but a constitutional guarantee ensuring justice and dignity for tribal women.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India, on July 17, 2025, upheld the equal right of tribal women to inherit ancestral property, marking a crucial advancement in gender justice within tribal communities. The verdict overturned a 2022 ruling of the Chhattisgarh High Court, which had denied inheritance rights to a tribal woman, Dhaiya, citing the absence of specific customary laws.
The Court emphasized that customary practices, like formal laws, must evolve with time and cannot be used to perpetuate gender discrimination. Invoking Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law, the bench ruled that customs cannot override fundamental rights, particularly in cases where they deprive individuals, especially women, of their legal entitlements.
This case, rooted in a property dispute dating back to 1992, reflects a broader judicial effort to ensure parity in inheritance for tribal women. The Court reaffirmed its stance from a similar 2022 judgment involving a tribal woman from Odisha, asserting that women from Scheduled Tribes deserve the same rights in intestate succession as their non-tribal counterparts.
The ruling also revives discussions on amending laws such as the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which currently excludes Scheduled Tribes, and urges reconsideration of other state-specific legislations like the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, 1949, which contains gender-discriminatory provisions.
While recognising the cultural importance of customary tribal laws, the Court underscored that these cannot justify gender-based exclusion. The judgment reaffirms the constitutional vision of substantive equality, blending tribal autonomy with the imperative of non-discrimination.
Background
The present case arises from a long-standing property dispute involving a tribal woman named Dhaiya, belonging to the Gond community in Chhattisgarh. In 1992, Dhaiya sought the partition of her maternal grandfather Bhajju alias Bhanjan Gond’s ancestral property, asserting that as his daughter, she too had an equal right to inherit along with her five brothers.
After her passing, her legal heirs, the appellants in the case, continued to pursue the matter. However, their claim was initially denied by the defendants (relatives), who relied on tribal customs to exclude women from inheritance.
The dispute led to the filing of a civil suit for declaration of title and partition. The Trial Court, by its judgment dated 29th February 2008, dismissed the suit, observing that the plaintiffs had failed to prove a specific customary law allowing women from the Gond tribe to inherit ancestral property.
The First Appellate Court upheld the same reasoning in April 2009, agreeing that neither the Hindu Succession Act applied to Scheduled Tribes nor had any relevant custom been established.
The Chhattisgarh High Court, in 2022, also affirmed these findings and dismissed the second appeal. The plaintiffs, therefore, approached the Supreme Court, raising the fundamental question of whether a tribal woman, or her heirs, can be denied equal rights in ancestral property solely due to the absence of codified inheritance law or specific customary validation.
Legal Findings and Final Verdict of the Apex Court
The Supreme Court held that the courts below had committed a serious error by placing the burden solely on the plaintiffs to prove a custom allowing women to inherit property, instead of asking the defendants to prove an exclusionary custom.
The Court observed that such an approach was rooted in a “patriarchal predisposition” and reflected “an inference from Hindu law, which has no place in the present case.”
It emphasized that in the absence of any codified law or proven custom, courts must apply the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience. Referring to Section 6 of the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875, the Court noted that although the Act had been repealed in 2018, the saving clause ensured that rights accrued before its repeal remained protected. The Court stated,
“No right having been accrued prior to the repeal of the Act shall be affected thereby.”
It clarified that “justice, equity and good conscience may properly be referred to” when neither statutory law nor personal law applies. The Court also held that customary laws, like statutory laws, must evolve, noting: “Customs too, like the law, cannot remain stuck in time,” and warned that no one can be allowed to “take refuge in customs or hide behind them to deprive others of their right.”
The Court further held that denying inheritance rights to women, especially when no legal or customary prohibition is shown, violates Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law. Citing the precedent in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the Court reiterated that
“Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions, and it cannot be imprisoned within traditional and doctrinaire limits.”
The judgment stressed that “gender equality is intrinsic to the constitutional vision” and added that
“Denying the female heir a right in the property only exacerbates gender division and discrimination, which the law should ensure to weed out.”
Referring to the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, the Court acknowledged its intent to end gender-based discrimination and extended the same spirit to the present case involving a tribal woman.
ALSO READ: Are Daughters Equal Heirs? | Property Rights of Women in India Explained
In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the appellant-plaintiffs, being the legal heirs of Dhaiya, are entitled to an equal share in the ancestral property. The Court declared,
“In keeping with the principles of justice, equity and good conscience, read along with the overarching effect of Article 14 of the Constitution, the appellant-plaintiffs… are entitled to their equal share in the property.”
Accordingly, it set aside the judgments of the Trial Court, First Appellate Court, and High Court, and allowed the civil appeal, reaffirming the constitutional commitment to non-discrimination and gender justice. No costs were awarded.
Case Title: Ram Charan v Sukhram
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9537 OF 2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Click Here to Read More Reports On Ancestral Property
