The Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA), does not extend to members of Scheduled Tribes unless the Central Government specifically issues a notification bringing them within its purview. This exclusion is provided under Section 2(2) of the Act, which clearly states that the Act shall not apply to Scheduled Tribes unless the Central Government directs otherwise. The Court’s ruling came while setting aside a direction issued by the Himachal Pradesh High Court that had attempted to apply the HSA to tribal areas of the state, granting daughters inheritance rights under the Act.
The matter before the Supreme Court involved appeals challenging the High Court’s interpretation that the statutory provisions of the HSA overrode tribal customary laws in Himachal Pradesh. The High Court had directed that daughters of tribal families were entitled to inherit property equally under the HSA, effectively disregarding the tribal customs traditionally governing succession. The Supreme Court held that such a direction was legally untenable because Section 2(2) of the HSA expressly excludes Scheduled Tribes from its operation. The Bench observed that the High Court had acted beyond the scope of the issues raised and the evidence on record, and in doing so, had incorrectly applied the provisions of the HSA to communities that were explicitly exempted.
The Bench, consisting of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, reiterated that while the HSA provides uniform inheritance rights among Hindus, its statutory framework does not automatically extend to Scheduled Tribes. The Court emphasized that any change in the inheritance rights of Scheduled Tribes would require legislative intervention or a notification from the Central Government. The Supreme Court drew reference to its earlier rulings, including Tirith Kumar & Ors. v. Daduram & Ors. (2024), where it had highlighted the need for Parliament to consider extending the HSA to Scheduled Tribes. Similarly, in Kamla Neti v. LAO (2023), the Court had observed that the law could only be modified to include tribal communities through explicit government action and legislative clarity.
The judgment underscores the distinction between statutory law and customary law. The Supreme Court clarified that customary practices governing inheritance among Scheduled Tribes continue to hold legal effect in the absence of specific statutory extension. The ruling reinforces the principle that courts cannot override tribal customs merely by invoking statutory provisions that are explicitly excluded for certain communities. By emphasizing the role of legislative and executive processes, the Court sought to balance the uniformity offered by the HSA with the autonomy of tribal communities to govern their succession matters according to traditional practices.
This decision has significant implications for inheritance law in tribal areas across India. It establishes that while the HSA ensures equal inheritance rights for daughters and codifies succession among Hindus in general, its protections are not automatically available to members of Scheduled Tribes. Any expansion of these rights to tribal communities must occur through a formal notification by the Central Government or legislative amendment. The Supreme Court’s ruling thus maintains the legal integrity of Section 2(2) and preserves the customary inheritance frameworks that govern Scheduled Tribes, ensuring that statutory interventions respect the constitutional and legislative boundaries regarding the application of personal law.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.