Supreme Court: Hindu Succession Act Excludes Tribal Daughters

Supreme Court Rules Hindu Succession Act Does Not Apply to Tribal Daughters in Himachal Pradesh

Apex Court Sets Aside High Court Order Extending Hindu Succession Act to Tribal Communities

Judgment Highlights Distinction Between General Hindu Law and Customary Tribal Practices

By Our Legal Reporter

New Delhi: October 22, 2025: In a significant ruling with far-reaching implications for tribal communities, the Supreme Court of India has held that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA) does not apply to daughters belonging to Scheduled Tribes in Himachal Pradesh. The court set aside a Himachal Pradesh High Court judgment that had extended the provisions of the HSA to tribal daughters, granting them equal inheritance rights under Hindu law.

The apex court clarified that such an extension was contrary to Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, which explicitly excludes Scheduled Tribes from its ambit unless Parliament makes a specific notification.

Background of the Case

The case arose from a property dispute in Himachal Pradesh, where the High Court had ruled that daughters from tribal communities should be entitled to inherit property under the Hindu Succession Act, just like daughters in non-tribal Hindu families.

The High Court had reasoned that laws must evolve with time to ensure gender equality and social progress. It extended the benefits of the 2005 amendment to the HSA, which gave daughters equal coparcenary rights in Hindu joint family property.

However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that while the intention of the High Court was progressive, it had exceeded its jurisdiction by extending a central law to communities that Parliament had specifically excluded.

Supreme Court’s Observations

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra delivered the ruling on October 21, 2025. The judges emphasized that:

Section 2(2) of the HSA clearly states that the Act does not apply to Scheduled Tribes unless Parliament directs otherwise.
Courts cannot override legislative intent by judicial interpretation.
Tribal communities are governed by their customary laws, which may differ significantly from Hindu personal law.

The court noted:

“The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, by its very language, excludes Scheduled Tribes from its application. Any extension of its provisions to tribal communities must come through legislative action, not judicial pronouncements.”

Why the Ruling Matters

This judgment is important for several reasons:

Clarification of Law: It reaffirms that Scheduled Tribes are outside the scope of the Hindu Succession Act unless Parliament decides otherwise.
Customary Practices: It recognizes the continued role of tribal customary laws in governing inheritance and succession.
Judicial Boundaries: It underscores that courts cannot legislate from the bench, even in the name of social reform.

Gender Equality vs. Customary Law

The ruling has sparked debate about the balance between gender equality and respect for tribal customs.

On one hand, the 2005 amendment to the HSA was a landmark reform that gave daughters equal rights in ancestral property, correcting centuries of gender discrimination.
On the other hand, tribal communities in India have diverse customs, some of which may not align with the principles of gender equality enshrined in modern law.

The Supreme Court acknowledged this tension but stressed that any change in tribal inheritance laws must come through Parliamentary legislation, not judicial orders.

Past Precedents

This is not the first time the Supreme Court has clarified the non-applicability of the HSA to Scheduled Tribes. In earlier cases, the court had consistently held that tribal communities are governed by their own customs unless Parliament specifically brings them under the ambit of Hindu personal laws.

The present ruling reinforces this line of reasoning and sends a clear message to High Courts not to extend central laws to excluded groups without legislative sanction.

Implications for Himachal Pradesh Tribes

Himachal Pradesh is home to several tribal communities, including the Gaddis, Kinnauras, Lahaulas, and Pangwalas. These groups have distinct cultural and legal traditions, particularly in matters of marriage, property, and inheritance.

The Supreme Court’s ruling means that daughters in these communities will continue to be governed by customary inheritance laws, which may or may not provide them equal rights compared to sons.

This has raised concerns among activists who argue that tribal women may remain disadvantaged unless Parliament steps in to extend gender-equal inheritance rights.

Reactions from Legal Experts

Legal experts have offered mixed reactions:

Supporters of the ruling argue that the Supreme Court has correctly upheld the constitutional principle of respecting tribal autonomy and customs.
Critics say that the decision leaves tribal women vulnerable to discriminatory practices and delays much-needed reforms in gender justice.

Some scholars suggest that Parliament should now consider amending the law or issuing a notification to extend the HSA to tribal communities, while also ensuring that tribal voices are heard in the process.

The Road Ahead

The ruling places the ball firmly in Parliament’s court. If lawmakers wish to extend equal inheritance rights to tribal daughters, they must pass legislation or issue a notification under Section 2(2) of the HSA.

Until then, tribal women in Himachal Pradesh and other states will continue to be governed by customary laws, which vary widely across communities.

This raises broader questions about how India balances cultural diversity with constitutional guarantees of equality. Should tribal customs be preserved even if they conflict with gender justice? Or should Parliament intervene to harmonize tribal laws with national standards of equality?

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling that the Hindu Succession Act does not apply to tribal daughters in Himachal Pradesh is a landmark judgment that reaffirms the autonomy of tribal communities while highlighting the limits of judicial activism.

While the decision respects the letter of the law, it also exposes the gap between progressive legal reforms and traditional customs. For tribal women seeking equal inheritance rights, the path forward now lies with Parliament.

The judgment is a reminder that true justice requires not only legal clarity but also legislative will to ensure that equality reaches every corner of society.