Succession Rights Of Tribal Women: Constitutional Perspectives From Ram Charan V. Sukhram

*by Y. Leela Krishna Reddy & Udit Jain

The right to inherit property has traditionally been a privilege accorded to sons, deeply rooted in India's patriarchal history. The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, passed in 2005, aimed to rectify the discrimination against daughters by granting them equal coparcenary rights under the Hindu Succession Act. However, pursuant to Section 2 (2) of the Act, members of Scheduled Tribes were explicitly excluded, unless the Central Government issued a special notification bringing the Act into force for these tribes. Accordingly, tribal women remained governed by customary practices, depriving them of inheritance rights. These customs remain deleterious to women because of their patrilineal nature, and women of tribes often find their property rights subordinated.  

The present blog reflects on the issue of tribal women’s right to inheritance, analysing the recent Supreme Court judgment in Ram Charan v. SukhRam and Ors (Ram Charan). The judgment serves as a turning point, advancing gender justice for women belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. The constitutional guarantee provided within Article 14 is given due regard while interpreting that the judiciary must accord women equal inheritance rights unless a contrary custom specifically excludes. Thus, the article argues that Ram Charan represents a constitutionally significant precedent for gender justice within tribal communities. 

Part A examines the historical legal framework governing the inheritance rights of women. Part B argues for the pre-eminence of constitutional provisions and values over discriminatory customary law. Part C analyses the rationale adopted by the Supreme Court in the Ram Charan case while granting tribal women inheritance rights. Part D discusses the barriers to implementation and proposes possible administrative solutions to ensure the realisation of tribal women’s inheritance rights.

A. Historical Legal Framework

Inheritance under traditional Hindu Law has been structured through the dual lenses of the Mitakshara and Dayabhaga schools of thought. Both were patriarchal, though in distinct ways: the prevalent Mitakshara system was patrilineal, and women were not allowed to be coparceners. The property devolved according to survivorship, and with each birth and death, the share of the surviving male either diminished or enlarged. Whereas the Dayabhaga school of thought allowed widows to inherit property when there was no male heir, but that right ceased to exist as soon as the widow who got the property died, ensuring property eventually reverted to male lines.

Innumerable attempts were made thereafter to provide women with their property rights, culminating in the HSA, 1956, which made widows and sons equal heirs. The 1956 Act, however, did not recognise daughters as coparceners, preventing women from having equal rights to ancestral property. The 2005 amendment corrected this injustice, granting daughters equal rights to ancestral property, marking a historic recognition of gender parity in inheritance rights.  

Yet, for tribal women, Section 2(2) of the HSA remained an impenetrable barrier. This meant that, despite the 2005 amendment granting equal coparcenary rights to daughters, tribal women can not claim inheritance as a statutory right. Instead, they are governed by their own customary law, which has historically been exclusionary to women, only allowing them limited rights over property. While customary practices vary among different tribes, the underlying framework remains predominantly patrilineal. In the Angami and Adibasi community, women were expressly excluded from inheriting clan land, legitimised by the notion that daughters would join their husband’s household, where property rights lay with men. Interestingly, in matrilineal tribes like the Garo or Khasi, where daughters ostensibly inherited ancestral property, the real control of such property was often exercised by the male relatives, relegating women to mere custodians rather than proper owners. Thus, through the 2005 amendment, Hindu women continued enjoying statutory relief and protection, but tribal women’s situation remained pernicious on account of exclusionary customs.

B.     Constitutional Principles Governing Gender and Custom

The Constitution of India meticulously prioritises fundamental rights over discriminatory customs, securing constitutional promises precedence over archaic traditions. Articles 14 and 15 affirm equality before the law and prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sex. Article 38 and Article 46 direct states to preclude inequalities and concomitantly to endeavour for the protection and promotion of economically and socially disadvantaged individuals, thus discharging their duty as per the parens patriae concept. Consequently, these provision mandates states and the judiciary with positive obligations in establishing that customs and personal law do not contribute to perpetuating gender inequality. 

The Indian judiciary has consistently applied these principles in its interaction with exclusionary tribal customs. In the judgment of Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar,  it was observed by Justice Ramaswamy that local customary law is biased and denying women inheritance would reinforce existing inequalities. In the State of Nagaland & Anr v. Rosemary Dzuvichu (Naga Mothers case), the Gauhati High Court clarified that customs cannot be ossified dogmas undermining constitutional guarantees. Similarly, in Sarwango v. Urchamin, the absence of a binding exclusionary custom allowed the Court to uphold the daughters’ inheritance on the grounds of equity, justice, and good conscience. In Bahadur v. Bratiya, the Himachal Pradesh High Court, adopting a revisionist approach, held that customs excluding females from inheritance are manifestly contrary to public policy and such arbitrary customary practices cannot be upheld under the guise of tradition. 

The Rajasthan High Court grappled with the social and economic impact of the exclusion of tribal women from inheritance rights and the protection of the HSA in the case of Manni Devi v Rama Devi. In this case, the claim of a woman belonging to the Meena community seeking inheritance rights over property that her father had alienated through a gift deed had been dismissed by the Board of Revenue basis of section 2(2) of the HSA. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand called Section 2(2) a “formidable barrier” and “manifestly unjustified” when compared to the rights of non-tribal daughters. The court strenuously restored Manni Devi’s claim and urged Parliament to act so that women of the Scheduled Tribes are not dependent on judicial discretion.

Contrastingly, the judiciary in Butaki Bai v. SukhBati developed the problematic ‘Test of Hinduization’ – to claim benefits under the HSA, a tribal woman must prove with proper legal evidence that she has abandoned her customary succession law and has fully adopted Hindu law to be governed by it in matters of inheritance. Yet, the larger jurisprudential trend has been towards maintaining constitutional equality as the standard against which customs must be judged. By the time the Ram Charan case reached the Supreme Court, this trajectory of cases clearly indicates that gender-exclusionary customs have been interpreted as antithetical to constitutional morality.

C. The Pivotal Supreme Court Judgment in Ram Charan & Ors. v. Sukhram & Ors. (2025)

The Supreme Court’s decision in Ram Charan marked a progressive approach towards reconciling customary law with constitutional guarantees of gender equality in matters of succession in tribal communities. The case concerned ancestral property belonging to a Gond family, in which the legal heirs of Dhaiya, a tribal woman, were excluded from succession on the grounds of a customary prohibition against women inheriting property. Both the trial court and the High Court upheld this exclusion, reasoning that customary law governed tribal succession and that HSA was inapplicable to Scheduled Tribes by virtue of Section 2(2). The issue before the Supreme Court, therefore, was whether such a custom could withstand constitutional scrutiny and displace the equal rights of women and their heirs.

The Court reaffirmed the principle that customs must be strictly proved and cannot be presumed merely based on sporadic practice. It held that the defendants had failed to demonstrate the existence of a uniform, obligatory custom barring women from succession. More fundamentally, the Court emphasised that customs are not static but must evolve in consonance with constitutional morality. It rejected the argument that exclusionary practices, even if claimed as custom, could survive the scrutiny of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. The Court further clarified that the statutory exclusion in Section 2(2) of the HSA cannot legitimise sex-based discrimination in succession, particularly when such practices undermine fundamental rights.

In allowing the appeal, the Court declared that Dhaiya’s legal heirs are entitled to an equal share in the ancestral property. Further, the apex court also urged Parliament to consider extending the Hindu Succession Act to Scheduled Tribes to prevent similar exclusions in the future (See LiveLaw Report). The judgment thus reaffirms the constitutional morality that customs, however longstanding, cannot be permitted to perpetuate discrimination against women.

D. Barriers to Implementation, and the pathway to realisation of Rights

The judgment in Ram Charan carries profound implications for tribal communities and gender parity through women's empowerment. By recognising tribal women and their heirs as entitled to equal succession rights, the Court has not only delivered justice in an individual dispute but also set a precedent with the potential to reshape succession in tribal societies. Secure inheritance rights are closely linked with economic agency, enabling women to access land, credit, and state entitlements. (See generally OHCHR Report) In the Indian society where land ownership is the basis of livelihood and identity, the recognition of women’s rights represents both material empowerment and a symbolic break from entrenched patriarchy.

Legislative action could provide uniformity and certainty, while ensuring that tribal women are not deprived of rights available to women elsewhere. Yet, the path to effective implementation is fraught with challenges (See here). Local revenue systems often fail to capture women’s claims, and enforcement of court decrees may be hindered by administrative inertia. Moreover, resistance from traditional leaders and patriarchal community structures is foreseeable, as the decision disrupts power hierarchies embedded in customary governance, while justifying their opposition under the garb of ‘cultural preservation.’ This unrest can escalate tensions, leading to conflict and reluctance to execute court orders recognising female heirs.

Further, many tribal women lack awareness of their rights post the Court’s ruling. Even if they were aware, they face immense familial and social pressures discouraging assertion of their inheritance rights. Alongside legal reform, sustained efforts toward raising legal literacy and sensitising tribal communities about gender equality will be essential to translate the ratio of Ram Charan into meaningful social change. Such initiatives can empower tribal women to claim their rightful inheritance, advancing their autonomy and social status. Sensitisation campaigns, paralegal support, and accessible legal aid are necessary to translate rights into reality. Equally important is the training of revenue and judicial officers to ensure fidelity to the Supreme Court’s constitutional reasoning at the grassroots.

Ram Charan is an important breakthrough, but it is only the beginning of a longer struggle for tribal women’s property rights. The judgment opens the constitutional door to equality, yet it does not by itself dismantle the deep legal, social, and administrative barriers that still restrict tribal women’s lives. Clear legislative reform, and sustained efforts to change social attitudes are necessary to ensure that the promise of this judgment is fulfilled.

*Y. Leela Krishna Reddy is a fourth-year law student pursuing B.B.A. LL.B (Hons.) at National Law University, Jodhpur.

*Udit Jain is a third year law student pursuing B.A. LL.B (Hons.) at National Law University, Jodhpur.

The views expressed above are the author's alone and do not represent the beliefs of Family Law Chronicle: The CFL Blog.