Hindu Succession Act Doesn’t Apply to Tribal Daughters in Himachal: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has set aside the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decision that extended the application of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, to daughters belonging to tribal communities in the state. Court held that such directions were contrary to law and beyond the scope of the case.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra noted that under Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, the law does not apply to members of Scheduled Tribes unless specifically notified by the Central Government. Court observed that “no such notification has been issued denotifying any tribal community in Himachal Pradesh, including the Sawara tribe,” thereby making the High Court’s extension of Hindu inheritance rights to tribal women legally untenable.

Court further held that in view of the provisions of Section 2 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, no such directions could have been issued by the High Court, more so in a case where the issue was neither directly nor substantially involved in the intra-party appeal, arising out of the judgment and decree passed in a civil proceeding.

Further, court said, the directions issued by the High Court did not emanate from any one of the issues framed by the court or pleas raised or agitated by the parties.

A civil appeal was filed against the judgment and order of June 23, 2015, in a regular second appeal by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla. The court appointed Advocate Rebecca Mishra as amicus curiae.

The challenge before cthe ourt was a paragraph of the High Court's judgment which stated that daughters in the tribal areas in the State of Himachal Pradesh would inherit the property in accordance with the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and not as per customs and usages in order to prevent the women from social injustice and prevention of all forms of exploitation.

"The laws must evolve with the times if societies are to progress. It is made clear by way of abundant precaution that the observations made hereinabove only pertain to right to inherit the property by the daughters under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and not any other privileges enjoined by the trial in the tribal areas,” the High Court had said.

The Supreme Court, however, disagreed, stating that while gender equality is a vital constitutional goal, courts cannot override explicit legislative provisions or constitutional boundaries.

Referring to its recent decision in Tirith Kumar & Ors. v. Daduram & Ors. (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3810), the bench reiterated that Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution vest exclusive power in the President to issue notifications specifying or de-notifying Scheduled Castes and Tribes. “The lists made under these Articles can only be amended with the permission of the President,” the court said, clarifying that the judiciary cannot expand the application of statutory laws to communities explicitly exempted by Parliament.

Court further cited the landmark decision in Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar (1996) where it was held that neither the Hindu Succession Act, the Indian Succession Act, nor Muslim personal law applies to custom-governed tribal societies unless a formal notification is issued. That position, the bench noted, has been reaffirmed in several subsequent rulings including Ahmedabad Women Action Group (AWAG) v. Union of India (1997).

Court thus ordered that paragraph 63 of the High Court’s judgment, which contained the impugned directions, be “set aside and expunged from the record.” The civil appeal was disposed of accordingly.

Case Title: Nawang & Anr Vs Bahadur & Ors

Judgment Date: October 8, 2025

Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra