Introduction
In a significant reiteration of constitutional and statutory principles, the Supreme Court of India has clarified that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA) does not apply to members of Scheduled Tribes unless expressly extended to them by a Central Government notification. The Court, in Nawang and Another v. Bahadur and Others, set aside a sweeping direction of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, which had applied the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act to tribal communities of the State.
This decision reaffirms the legislative intent under Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act and strengthens the recognition of tribal customary laws in matters of succession and inheritance.
Background of the Case
The appeal before the Supreme Court arose from a 2015 judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court. The High Court, while deciding a second appeal, had directed that daughters in tribal areas of Himachal Pradesh should inherit property in accordance with the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and not by following tribal customs.
The High Court’s reasoning was that denying daughters equal inheritance rights amounted to “social injustice and exploitation,” and therefore, the modern principles of equality under the HSA should govern even tribal families.
However, this direction was challenged on the grounds that it contravened Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act and interfered with the personal and customary laws of Scheduled Tribes without statutory authority.
Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act: The Key Provision
Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, is explicit in its exclusion of Scheduled Tribes:
“Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the members of any Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of clause (25) of Article 366 of the Constitution unless the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, otherwise directs.”
This means that, unless the Central Government issues a specific notification, the succession and inheritance rights of Scheduled Tribes continue to be governed by customary laws and traditions, not by the codified Hindu law.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra found that the High Court’s directions were unwarranted and legally unsustainable. The Court observed that the High Court’s comments—particularly paragraph 63 of the 2015 judgment—were not related to the issues framed or the questions argued in the appeal.
Key Excerpts from the Judgment
“In view of the provisions of Section 2 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, no such directions extracted supra 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.”
The Court held that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing general directions that affected the rights of an entire community, despite such issues not being part of the actual dispute before it.
Reaffirmation of Earlier Precedents
The Supreme Court relied on its earlier ruling in Tirith Kumar & Ors. v. Daduram & Ors. (2024), where it had clearly held that Scheduled Tribes are expressly excluded from the operation of the Hindu Succession Act.
In Tirith Kumar, the Court had urged the Parliament to consider extending the HSA to Scheduled Tribes, pointing out that tribal women often remain outside the legal framework of gender equality in inheritance.
Similarly, in Kamla Neti v. LAO (2023), the Supreme Court had observed:
“It is high time for the Central Government to look into the matter and, if required, to 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.”
Thus, while the Court continues to respect tribal customs as long as the statutory exclusion exists, it has also recognized the need for reform and legislative intervention to ensure gender justice among tribal communities.
Constitutional and Policy Dimensions
The ruling highlights the delicate balance between tribal autonomy and constitutional equality. The Constitution of India, through Articles 14 and 15, guarantees equality before the law and prohibits discrimination. However, the Fifth Schedule and Article 244(1) preserve the distinct customs, traditions, and governance systems of Scheduled Tribes.
By excluding Scheduled Tribes from the ambit of the HSA, Parliament sought to respect their unique customary laws. But this also means that tribal women may not enjoy the same inheritance rights as other Hindu women under Section 6 of the HSA, which grants equal coparcenary rights to daughters.
The Supreme Court’s judgment thus reflects judicial restraint—it reiterates the law as it stands while simultaneously acknowledging the need for future legislative review.
Implications of the Judgment
1. Legal Clarity
The decision removes ambiguity regarding the applicability of the Hindu Succession Act to tribal communities. Courts cannot override Section 2(2) through judicial directions, and tribal customary laws remain the governing framework unless changed by Parliament or a Central notification.
2. Protection of Tribal Customs
The judgment safeguards tribal identity and customary practices, consistent with constitutional protections for Scheduled Tribes. It recognizes that uniform civil laws cannot automatically override traditional governance systems in tribal areas.
3. Legislative Responsibility
At the same time, the Court has reiterated its earlier appeals for legislative action. Parliament must decide whether to extend the HSA to Scheduled Tribes—perhaps with context-specific modifications to balance equality and cultural autonomy.
4. Gender Justice Concerns
While the exclusion of the HSA preserves tribal autonomy, it also raises concerns about gender equality. In several tribal societies, customary inheritance rules favor male heirs, leaving women dependent on family arrangements rather than statutory entitlements. The Court’s repeated calls to Parliament highlight this gap in legal protection.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Nawang and Another v. Bahadur and Others (2025) serves as a firm reaffirmation of the statutory exclusion of Scheduled Tribes from the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. By setting aside the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s directions, the apex court has upheld the principle that judicial orders cannot override explicit legislative provisions.
At the same time, the judgment aligns with the Court’s evolving jurisprudence urging the Central Government to review outdated exclusions that may perpetuate inequality within tribal communities, particularly concerning women’s inheritance rights.
Until Parliament acts, however, tribal succession and property rights will continue to be governed by customary laws, as protected under Section 2(2) of the HSA and the Constitution’s Fifth Schedule.
Also Read
Supreme Court Stays Bombay High Court Order Restricting Kirloskar Trademark Licensing
