The Supreme Court today (December 19) once again urged Parliament to study ways and means of ensuring the right to survival of tribal women by making necessary amendments to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (“HSA”).

The Court referred to Kamla Neti v. AJO (2023) where it was noted that “It is high time for the Central Government to look into the matter and, if necessary, amend the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act by which the Hindu Succession Act is not made applicable to the members of the Scheduled Tribe .”

A bench composed of Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol was hearing an appeal challenging the decision of the Chhattisgarh High Court, which granted property rights to the respondents (tribal women) of the ‘Sawara Tribe’, a Scheduled Tribe notified under Article 342 of the Constitution.

The appellant argued that since the respondent’s father had died before 1956, therefore, they had no right to inheritance.

Rejecting the argument of the appellant, the High Court invoked the principles of justice, equity and good conscience in extending survivorship benefit under the Hindu Succession Act (HSA) to the respondent, although she noted that the HSA does not apply to Scheduled Tribe members.

Confirming the decision of the High Court, the judgment written by Judge Karol justified the High Court’s reliance on the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875, which allows the principles of justice, equity and good conscience to fill in the gaps in the tribal succession laws.

The Court referred to the case of the dissenting opinion of Madhu Kishwar and Ors. v.State of Bihar (1998) and other cases to emphasize that courts can adopt equitable principles to promote fairness, particularly for female offspring.

In Madhu Kishwar, Ramaswamy, J. observed:

“I would say that the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the Indian Succession Act, 1925, although in their terms, would not apply to the Scheduled Tribes, the general principles contained therein being consistent with justice, equity, fairness, fairness and goodness. consciousness would apply to them. Accordingly, I hold that Scheduled Tribe women would succeed to the estate of their parents, brother, husband, as heirs by intestate succession and inherit the property with equal share with the male heir with absolute rights in accordance with the general principles of Hindu Succession Law. , 1956, as amended and interpreted by this Court and also of the Indian Tribal Christian Succession Act…”

“Having considered the pronouncements of this Court as stated above and taking into account the fact that Mardan died in 1951, i.e. before the enactment of the HSA, 1956, we find no error in the judgment of the High Court applying the provisions of the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875 and more particularly section 6 thereof which postulates the application of the principle of justice, equity and good conscience, to take into account possibilities not covered by section 5 of the Act (HSA).said the Court.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Appearance:

For the petitioner(s) Mr. Satish Pandey, AOR Mr. Mahesh Kumar Tiwari, Adv. Ms. Nishi Prabha Singh, Adv. Ms. Jay Jaimini Pandey, Adv. Ms. Ayushi Pandey, Adv. Ms. Lalita Gupta, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Vijay Lakshmi, Adv. Mr. Braj Kishore Mishra, Adv.

For the respondent(s) Mr. Rajeev Kumar Bansal, AOR Mr. Parvinder, Adv. Mr. Manish Das, Adv. Mr. Mukul Biswas, Adv. Mr. Vidya Sagar, Adv. Mr. Arun Kumar Arunachal, Adv. Mr. Arjun D Singh, Adv. Ms. Ankita Sharma, AOR

Case Title: TIRITH KUMAR & ORS. AGAINST DADURAM AND SRO.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1020

Click here to read/download the judgment