Context:

The Supreme Court of India recently held that excluding tribal women from inheritance on the sole basis of gender is discriminatory and violates constitutional guarantees of equality. The Court ruled that tribal women, even though not covered under the Hindu Succession Act, are entitled to equal rights in ancestral property unless a specific custom barring such inheritance is proved.

Background of the Case:

The case involved legal heirs of a Scheduled Tribe woman named Dhaiya, who sought a share in the property of her maternal grandfather. Her claim was opposed by male family members who argued that under prevailing tribal customs, women were not entitled to inherit ancestral property.

·        Three lower courts—the trial court, the first appellate court, and the High Court—dismissed the women's claim, asserting that the appellants had failed to prove the existence of any custom that allowed inheritance by tribal women.

·        However, the matter reached the Supreme Court, which took a fundamentally different approach to the question of gender-based exclusion in inheritance matters.

Supreme Court's Key Observations:

The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Joymalya Bagchi emphatically overturned the lower courts' rulings. Court noted-

There is no rationale in granting succession only to male heirs. Denying a woman or her heirs a share in the property simply because a custom allowing it hasn’t been proven is both unjust and unconstitutional.”

On Custom vs Constitution

The Court acknowledged that while the Hindu Succession Act does not apply to Scheduled Tribes, this does not automatically exclude tribal women from inheriting property. In fact, customary law must yield to the Constitution if it perpetuates discrimination.

Burden of Proof

A crucial part of the ruling involved the burden of proof. The Court criticized the lower courts for requiring women to prove that a custom allowed them to inherit. Instead, the Supreme Court clarified that it is for the opposing party to prove the existence of a custom that excludes women from succession.

Violation of Constitutional Rights

The Court declared that denying inheritance to women violates Article 14 (Equality before the law) and Article 15(1) (Prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sex) of the Constitution. It also referred to Articles 38 and 46, which aim to promote justice and eliminate inequality.

Implications of the Ruling:

1.       Strengthens Rights of Tribal Women
This judgment empowers tribal women and their heirs to claim their rightful share in ancestral property, even in the absence of codified succession law, provided there’s no clear custom barring such claims.

2.      Modernization of Customary Law
The ruling signals that customs must evolve with constitutional values. It sets a precedent for courts to examine customary practices through the lens of justice, equity, and good conscience.

3.      Shifting Legal Burdens
The decision clarifies legal expectations: it is not women who must prove that they have rights under tribal law; rather, those opposing their claims must prove exclusionary customs.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court's verdict is a significant stride toward gender equality, especially for women in tribal communities who have long remained outside the ambit of codified inheritance laws. It reaffirms that discrimination has no place in either law or custom and that constitutional principles must prevail, even where legislative silence or cultural tradition exists.