Custom Cannot Be Patriarchal In Absence Of Proof: Supreme Court Upholds Equal Inheritance Rights Of Tribal Women

“Justice, Equity, And Good Conscience Must Prevail Where Law Is Silent”, In a watershed verdict on 17th July 2025, the Supreme Court of India decisively upheld the property rights of female heirs in Scheduled Tribes, overturning the concurrent findings of all subordinate courts which had denied inheritance rights to the legal heirs of a tribal woman. The Court held that in absence of any codified law or established custom excluding female succession, “justice, equity, and good conscience” must prevail, and equality under the Constitution cannot be sacrificed at the altar of patriarchal presumptions. This judgment is a reaffirmation of constitutional ideals ensuring that gender cannot be a ground to deny succession rights among Scheduled Tribes.

The appellants, legal heirs of Dhaiya, a tribal woman from the Gond community, sought partition of ancestral property belonging to their maternal grandfather, Bhajju Gond. The factual core was simple—Dhaiya was one of six children, the only daughter among five sons. Following Bhajju's death, her descendants were denied a share in the family property. The refusal of partition culminated in a legal battle commencing in 1992, eventually dismissed by the Trial Court in 2008, the First Appellate Court in 2009, and the Chhattisgarh High Court in 2022.

The lower courts dismissed the suit citing Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which excludes Scheduled Tribes from its purview, and concluded there was no proof of custom enabling female succession. The High Court also reasoned that the repeal of Section 6 of the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875, in 2018 nullified reliance on the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience. The appellants challenged these findings before the Supreme Court.

At the heart of the dispute lay a fundamental question: could the legal heirs of a tribal woman be denied succession rights in the absence of any established custom to the contrary? The Supreme Court emphatically answered in the negative.

Justice Sanjay Karol, speaking for the Bench, framed the issue in stirring terms:

“One would think that in this day and age, where great strides have been made in realizing the constitutional goal of equality, this Court would not need to intervene for equality between the successors of a common ancestor and the same should be a given, irrespective of their biological differences, but it is not so.”

The Court held that in absence of codified personal law (owing to Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act) and absence of proven custom excluding women, “justice, equity, and good conscience” as envisaged under Section 6 of the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875 must prevail. The Court further emphasized that “custom cannot be presumed to be patriarchal” and criticised the lower courts for defaulting to an exclusionary stance without any evidentiary basis.

The Supreme Court was categorical in rejecting the reasoning adopted by the lower courts. It observed,

“The courts below proceeded, in our view, with an assumption in mind and that assumption was misplaced… the point of inception regarding the discussion of customs was at the exclusion stage… patriarchal predisposition appears to be an inference from Hindu law, which has no place in the present case.”

On the High Court’s refusal to apply the 1875 Act citing its repeal, the Court clarified that repeal did not obliterate accrued rights. It observed,

“The effect of Section 4 (of the Repeal Act, 2018) is clear that no right having been accrued prior to the repeal of the Act shall be affected thereby… the right having been accrued in favour of the appellant-plaintiffs’ mother upon the death of her father became crystallized.”

The Court further noted the long-standing legal doctrine that in absence of applicable personal law, the courts must act according to justice, equity, and good conscience. Quoting from M. Siddiq v. Suresh Das (Ram Janmabhoomi case), it noted,

“Courts in India have long availed of the principles of justice, good conscience and equity to supplement the incompleteness or inapplicability of the letter of the law with the ground realities of legal disputes to do justice between the parties.”

The Supreme Court addressed the issue through three interlinked lenses: the inapplicability of Hindu succession law, the failure to prove exclusionary custom, and the overarching constitutional guarantee of gender equality.

First, the Court affirmed that the appellants were not governed by Hindu personal law, referring to Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act. The Bench pointedly remarked,

“Since the Hindu Law has no application, the next possibility to be considered is that of the application of custom.”

However, with no proof of customary exclusion, the Court held that the failure to establish a tradition excluding women from inheritance meant that courts could not presume such exclusion:

“Neither any particular law of a community nor custom could be brought into application by either side.”

Second, applying the principle of justice, equity, and good conscience, the Court drew strength from the constitutional commitment to non-discrimination. It observed,

“There appears to be no rational nexus or reasonable classification for only males to be granted succession over the property of their forebears and not women.”

Importantly, the judgment wove constitutional jurisprudence into its reasoning. Citing Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, it reinforced that arbitrariness and equality are incompatible:

“Equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belongs to the rule of law in a republic, while the other, to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch.”

The Court invoked other landmark judgments including Air India v. Nergesh Meerza, Shayara Bano v. Union of India, and the constitutional amendments brought in by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, to stress that modern law aspires to erase gender injustice, not perpetuate it.

A particularly poignant observation by the Court resonates throughout the judgment:

“Denying the female heir a right in the property only exacerbates gender division and discrimination, which the law should ensure to weed out.”

Summing up its verdict, the Supreme Court unequivocally declared,

“In keeping with the principles of justice, equity and good conscience, read along with the overarching effect of Article 14 of the Constitution, the appellant-plaintiffs, being Dhaiya’s legal heirs, are entitled to their equal share in the property.”

Accordingly, the judgments of the Trial Court, First Appellate Court, and High Court were set aside, granting equal property rights to the legal heirs of a tribal woman. The appeal was allowed without costs.

This landmark ruling not only upholds the constitutional promise of gender equality but also delivers a clarion call against patriarchal bias embedded in legal systems. The Supreme Court has sent a strong message: when law is silent and custom is unproven, equality and justice must reign supreme.

Date of Decision: 17th July 2025