The Supreme Court has set aside the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s order, ruling that tribal women in the state cannot inherit property under the Hindu Succession Act, as no formal government notification exempts them from customary tribal laws.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a ruling reaffirming the limits of judicial intervention in matters concerning tribal laws, the Supreme Court of India has overturned the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decision that had extended the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, to daughters belonging to tribal communities in the state.
ALSO READ: SC/ST Act Can’t Stop Bank from Mortgage Rights: Delhi High Court
Background of the Case
The controversy arose from a 2015 judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, which, in paragraph 63 of its order, directed that daughters in tribal areas of Himachal Pradesh would inherit property under the Hindu Succession Act rather than customary tribal laws. The High Court justified this step as a measure to prevent social injustice and exploitation of women, emphasizing the need for gender equality.
However, a civil appeal was filed challenging this directive, arguing that the High Court had overstepped its authority by issuing directions not directly related to the civil dispute under consideration.
ALSO READ: Flimsy, Childish and Baseless: Sonam Wangchuk’s Wife Slams NSA Detention
Supreme Court’s Reasoning
A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra set aside the High Court’s directions, observing:
Legal Scope of the Hindu Succession Act:
Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act specifically exempts members of Scheduled Tribes unless a notification by the Central Government explicitly includes them. The Supreme Court noted that no such notification has been issued for any tribal communities in Himachal Pradesh, including the Sawara tribe.
Judicial Overreach:
The Court emphasized that the High Court’s directions were beyond the issues raised in the civil proceedings and did not emanate from any pleadings or issues framed in the case. Courts cannot, under the guise of social justice, override explicit legislative provisions.
ALSO READ: Foreign Law Firm Alliances Under Scrutiny: BCI Issues Notice
Constitutional Framework:
Referring to Articles 341 and 342, the bench highlighted that the President of India alone has the power to notify or de-notify Scheduled Tribes. Judicial intervention cannot amend or expand statutory exemptions granted by Parliament.
Precedent Support:
The Court cited Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar (1996), reaffirmed in Ahmedabad Women Action Group (AWAG) v. Union of India (1997), which clearly held that neither the Hindu Succession Act nor other personal laws apply to tribal communities governed by customs unless formally notified. The recent decision in Tirith Kumar & Ors. v. Daduram & Ors. (2024) was also referenced to reinforce this principle.
Case Title:
Nawang & Anr Vs Bahadur & Ors
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4980 OF 2017
READ ORDER