Supreme Court seeks Tripura’s reply on a PIL that attacks a provision of the Jamatia Customary Laws Act, 2017, which the petitioner says lets rape and other serious offences be settled privately on payment of a fine.
New Delhi: Notice has been issued by the Supreme Court on a public interest litigation that questions the constitutional validity of Section 143 of Tripura’s Jamatia Customary Laws Act, 2017. According to the petition, the provision permits rape and other serious offences to be privately settled on payment of a fine of up to Rs 1 lakh [Madhumita Bhattacharya v. State of Tripura and Another].
The Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana condoned the delay in refiling, made the notice returnable on November 27, 2026 and directed that the petition be tagged with Writ Petition (Civil) No. 88 of 2026. The Court has not examined the challenge, and nothing in this report reflects any view on its merits.
The relief sought
Argued through Advocate-on-Record Shoumendu Mukherji, the petition asks for a declaration that Section 143 is unconstitutional and for a direction to the respondents to place all relevant records about the Act before the Court. What follows are the petitioner’s contentions. In the petition’s words, the provision “places a price tag on a woman’s dignity”, and it lets an accused escape the consequences of grievous sexual violence by paying money.
The petition also argues that tribal women are arbitrarily denied the equal protection of criminal law on the basis of geography and tribal affiliation, and that their dignity and bodily autonomy are undermined.
The Sixth Schedule argument
As the petition submits, the Sixth Schedule protects tribal culture, customs and land rights, but it does not allow customary bodies to override national criminal law. It contends that Section 143, read with Section 164 on penalties and fines, goes beyond the legislative powers the Sixth Schedule confers and sets up a parallel framework for dealing with rape.
Precedents and the Council’s powers
For the position that serious offences such as rape are wrongs against society and not private disputes the parties may compromise, the petitioner relies on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Madanlal. The Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council functions under the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution, which gives such councils limited law-making powers over matters such as land, customs and social practices, and the petition asks the Court to test Section 143 against those limits.
The State of Tripura and the Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council have been called upon to respond. Their stand on the provision is not yet on record, and the Court has made no finding on the claims of the petitioner.
Case Title: Madhumita Bhattacharya v. State of Tripura and Another [Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No. 32298 of 2026, tagged with W.P.(C) No. 88 of 2026]
Bench: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: October 26, 2026
Appearances: Advocate-on-Record Shoumendu Mukherji with Advocates Megha Sharma, Aniruddha Ghosh and Kaberi Sharma for the petitioner