Denying Scheduled Tribe Woman Her Share in Father’s Property Violates Equality: SC

The Supreme Court has on July 17, 2025 held that a woman from a Scheduled Tribe community cannot be denied an equal share in her father’s property in the absence of any legally established custom prohibiting such succession.

"We are of the view that, unless otherwise prescribed in law, denying the female heir a right in the property only exacerbates gender division and discrimination, which the law should ensure to weed out," a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Joymalya Bagchi said.

The judgment came in a civil appeal filed by the legal heirs of one Dhaiya, a tribal woman.

The case concerned the property of Bhajju alias Bhanjan Gond, who had five sons and one daughter, Dhaiya. After her death, her children (the appellants) approached the trial court seeking partition of the property, asserting their right through their mother. However, both the trial court and the appellate court rejected their claim, holding that the mother had no entitlement since no custom was proved to allow succession through a female heir. The Chhattisgarh High Court also upheld the court below's view.

Rejecting these findings, the apex court noted that while the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, excludes Scheduled Tribes from its scope under Section 2(2), this does not imply that tribal women can be denied property rights when no valid custom exists to justify the exclusion.

The division bench emphasized that such exclusion violates the principle of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution.

"There appears to be no rational nexus or reasonable classification for only males to be granted succession over the property of their forebears and not women, more so in the case where no prohibition to such effect can be shown to be prevalent as per law," the bench observed.

Highlighting the patriarchal bias in the approach of the courts below, the Supreme Court pointed out that the presumption was one of exclusion rather than inclusion, and such a mindset had no place in modern jurisprudence.

"An alternate scenario was also possible where not exclusion, but inclusion could have been presumed and the defendants then could have been asked to show that women were not entitled to inherit property. This patriarchal predisposition appears to be an inference from Hindu law, which has no place in the present case," the bench remarked.

Court further observed that the constitutional mandate under Article 15(1), along with Articles 38 and 46, aims at eliminating discrimination on the basis of sex, and the equality discussion under Article 14 “will be incomplete without reference to the first and most commendable step taken under the Hindu Law by way of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 which made daughters the coparceners in joint family property".

Given that no customary law was proved either for or against female inheritance, court resorted to the principle of justice, equity and good conscience under Section 6 of the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875.

“So, the right having been accrued in favour of the appellant-plaintiffs’ mother upon the death of her father... became crystallised and would not be affected by the fact that the Act was no longer in the statute book,” it held.

“One would think that in this day and age, where great strides have been made in realising the constitutional goal of equality, this court would not need to intervene... but it is not so,” the judges remarked, expressing concern over continued gender discrimination in succession rights.

Concluding that denying Dhaiya or her legal heirs a share in the absence of contrary custom would violate Article 14, court ruled in favour of the appellants.

Case Title: Ram Charan & Ors Vs Sukhram & Ors

Judgment Date: July 17, 2025

Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and Joymalya Bagchi