The Supreme Court has overturned the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s ruling that gave tribal daughters inheritance rights under the Hindu Succession Act, stating that no Central Government notification exists for such application. The Court emphasized that law cannot be stretched beyond Parliament’s limits, even for gender equality.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India has ruled that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 does not apply to tribal women in Himachal Pradesh, setting aside a 2015 judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court that had extended inheritance rights to tribal daughters.
The Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra made it clear that the High Court had gone beyond its legal jurisdiction by issuing directions not supported by law or pleadings in the case.
The case—Nawang & Anr. v. Bahadur & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 4980 of 2017)—arose out of an appeal against the Himachal High Court’s June 23, 2015 order, which had declared that daughters in tribal areas would inherit property according to the Hindu Succession Act and not under customary tribal law.
The Supreme Court noted that under Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the law does not apply to Scheduled Tribes unless the Central Government specifically notifies it in the Official Gazette.
The Court observed:
“No such notification has been issued denotifying any tribal community in Himachal Pradesh, including the Sawara tribe.”
Therefore, the High Court’s attempt to extend the Act’s application to tribal women was legally unsustainable.
The High Court’s Controversial Direction
The High Court’s paragraph 63—now struck down—had stated:
“The upshot of the appreciation of the evidence and the law discussed hereinabove is that daughters in the tribal areas in the State of Himachal Pradesh shall 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 Supreme Court found that this direction was neither part of the issues framed nor pleaded by the parties, and hence beyond the High Court’s authority.
The Bench further noted:
“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.”
Supreme Court’s Clarification on Law and Constitution
Referring to its own ruling in Tirith Kumar & Ors. v. Daduram & Ors. (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3810), the Court reiterated that Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution give exclusive power to the President to issue notifications specifying or de-notifying Scheduled Castes and Tribes.
The judgment quoted:
“The lists made under these Articles can only be amended with the permission of the President.”
It further explained that a tribe can only be de-notified by a Presidential order, not by judicial interpretation. The Bench noted that the High Court’s reasoning lacked any official notification showing that the Sawara tribe had been de-notified.
Citing Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar (1996), the Supreme Court observed:
“Neither the Hindu Succession Act, nor the Indian Succession Act, nor even the Shariat law is applicable to custom-governed tribals. And custom, as is well recognized, varies from people to people and region to region.”
This position, the Court said, had been upheld in subsequent rulings such as Ahmedabad Women Action Group (AWAG) v. Union of India (1997).
The Final Order
Given these legal and constitutional limitations, the Bench ruled:
“Paragraph 63 of the impugned judgment/order dated 23.06.2015 containing directions are set aside to be expunged from the record.”
The appeal was disposed of accordingly, and all pending applications were closed. The Court appreciated the assistance of Advocate Rebecca Mishra, appointed as amicus curiae, and Advocate Rajesh Gupta for the appellants.
Legal Significance
This judgment reaffirms that tribal communities in India continue to be governed by their customary laws unless the Central Government issues a specific notification applying the Hindu Succession Act to them.
It also underscores that courts cannot extend the reach of legislation beyond what Parliament or the Constitution explicitly allows, even when the intention is to promote gender equality.
By reinforcing the boundary between customary tribal law and general Hindu law, the Supreme Court has restored the constitutional balance between legislative intent and judicial activism—ensuring that the unique identity and autonomy of Scheduled Tribes remain intact under Article 342 of the Constitution.
Explanatory Table of Laws and Sections Referenced
| Law / Provision | Section / Article | Explanation / Relevance in this Case |
|---|---|---|
| Hindu Succession Act, 1956 | Section 2(2) | States that the Act does not apply to members of any Scheduled Tribe unless the Central Government issues a notification in the Official Gazette. The Supreme Court held that no such notification exists for any tribal group in Himachal Pradesh, including the Sawara tribe. |
| Constitution of India | Article 341 | Empowers the President to issue notifications specifying which castes are deemed to be Scheduled Castes. Used to explain the constitutional structure behind caste and tribe recognition. |
| Constitution of India | Article 342 | Grants the President exclusive power to notify or de-notify Scheduled Tribes. The Court said that only the President can modify these lists, not the judiciary or any state authority. |
| Constitution of India | Article 366(25) | Defines “Scheduled Tribes” for the purposes of the Constitution. |
| Indian Succession Act, 1925 | Section 3 | Allows state governments to exempt certain races or tribes from the Act’s application — cited in Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar to show that custom-governed tribals are excluded from general inheritance laws. |
| General Clauses Act, 1897 | Section 13 | Interprets gender references in statutes — mentioned in Madhu Kishwar to show legislative intent about “masculine” and “feminine” usage in inheritance contexts. |
| Case Law: Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar (1996) | – | Held that customary tribal laws prevail over the Hindu Succession Act, the Indian Succession Act, or Shariat law unless a specific notification applies. The Supreme Court reaffirmed this position. |
| Case Law: Ahmedabad Women Action Group (AWAG) v. Union of India (1997) | – | Reaffirmed that personal or customary laws of tribes are not automatically overridden by general inheritance laws. |
| Case Law: Tirith Kumar & Ors. v. Daduram & Ors. (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3810) | – | Supreme Court’s precedent confirming that Articles 341–342 restrict the power to modify tribal lists exclusively to the President. Relied upon heavily in Nawang & Anr. |
| Case Law: State of Maharashtra v. Milind (2001) | – | Clarified that the Scheduled Tribe status of a community can only be altered through a Presidential notification, not judicial interpretation. |
| Case Law: M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore (1963) | – | Explained the constitutional logic behind Articles 341 and 342; cited to trace historical and legal context of Scheduled Tribe classification. |
Case Summary
- Case Title: Nawang & Anr. v. Bahadur & Ors.
- Citation: Civil Appeal No. 4980 of 2017
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Jurisdiction: Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
- Date of Judgment: 8 October 2025
- Bench Composition: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
- Appellants’ Counsel: Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Advocate; Mr. Harpreet Singh, Advocate; Mr. Sumit R. Sharma, AOR
- Amicus Curiae: Ms. Rebecca Mishra, Advocate
- Respondents’ Counsel: Not specified in record
- Impugned Order: Himachal Pradesh High Court, RSA No. 8/2003, decided on 23 June 2015
- Main Issue: Whether the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 applies to daughters belonging to Scheduled Tribes in Himachal Pradesh
- Judgment Outcome: Supreme Court set aside and expunged paragraph 63 of the Himachal Pradesh High Court judgment which had applied the Hindu Succession Act to tribal daughters
- Result: Appeal disposed of; no costs awarded
Significance of the Judgment
This ruling reaffirms a crucial legal principle — tribal communities are governed by their own customary laws unless the Central Government explicitly applies general laws like the Hindu Succession Act to them.
It also reminds that courts, while sympathetic to gender justice, cannot override constitutional limits or legislative intent. As the Bench implied, the judiciary cannot act as a substitute for Parliament when a law expressly excludes a class of people such as Scheduled Tribes.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.