No Inheritance Rights for Daughters in Himachal's Tribal Areas Under Hindu Succession Act Unless Notified by Centre: Supreme Court

“Custom-governed Tribals Are Outside Hindu Succession Act Unless Central Government Says Otherwise – Judicial Declarations Cannot Override Legislative Scheme” - In a major constitutional clarification on the applicability of personal law to Scheduled Tribes, the Supreme Court of India expunged a controversial direction issued by the Himachal Pradesh High Court, which had held that daughters in tribal areas of the State would inherit property under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, regardless of customary laws. Terming the pronouncement “impermissible, without jurisdiction, and beyond the scope of the case”, the Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra allowed Civil Appeal and set aside paragraph 63 of the impugned High Court judgment.

The apex court reaffirmed that Scheduled Tribes continue to be governed by their customs and usages in matters of succession, and that the Hindu Succession Act (HSA), 1956, by express statutory exclusion under Section 2(2), does not apply to Scheduled Tribes unless the Central Government issues a notification to that effect. No such notification exists for the tribes in Himachal Pradesh, the Court noted.

“Courts Cannot Legislate Under the Garb of Progress – Applicability of Hindu Law to Tribes Requires Express Notification”

The central legal issue before the Court was limited. In the impugned judgment dated 23 June 2015, the High Court, while deciding an intra-party civil appeal involving succession rights, went on to make a sweeping declaration:

“Daughters in the tribal areas in the State of Himachal Pradesh shall inherit the property in accordance with the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and not as per customs and usages…”

Critically, this observation was not based on any specific plea, issue, or argument raised before the High Court, nor was it essential to the resolution of the appeal. The Supreme Court held that such a direction in the nature of obiter dicta was not only judicial overreach, but legally unsustainable given the express bar under Section 2(2) of the HSA, 1956, which reads:

“Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the members of any Scheduled Tribe… unless the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, otherwise directs.”

Justice Karol, writing for the Bench, observed:

“The HSA, 1956, cannot apply to Scheduled Tribes. This position of law is well settled. The direction issued by the High Court in paragraph 63, in a matter where the issue was neither directly nor substantially involved, is beyond its jurisdiction.”

“Custom Still Governs the Field – Law Must Evolve, But Through Parliament, Not Judicial Fiat”

Reiterating the landmark ruling in Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar [(1996) 5 SCC 125], the Court emphasized that tribal communities in India, unless specifically notified, are governed by customary succession laws, not codified Hindu personal law. The judgment quotes Madhu Kishwar:

“Neither the Hindu Succession Act, nor the Indian Succession Act, nor even the Shariat law is applicable to the custom-governed tribals. And custom, as is well recognized, varies from people to people and region to region.”

The Bench further referred to State of Maharashtra v. Milind [(2001) 1 SCC 4], where the Court held: “A caste is a Scheduled Caste or a tribe is a Scheduled Tribe only if they are included in the President's Orders issued under Articles 341 and 342.”

Highlighting the constitutional scheme, the Court explained that Scheduled Tribe status is not a judicial inference but a constitutional recognition, which can only be altered through Presidential notification under Article 342. Since no such notification exists for de-notifying the relevant tribes in Himachal Pradesh, the HSA could not be judicially extended to them.

“Obiter Direction Unconnected to Pleadings Must Be Struck Down”

The Court strongly disapproved of the High Court’s unsolicited directive, holding: “The direction issued by the High Court was not emanating from any of the issues framed by the Court or pleas raised by the parties. It was completely uncalled for.”

It concluded: “In this view of the matter, paragraph 63 of the impugned judgment/order dated 23.06.2015 containing directions is set aside to be expunged from the record.”

The appeal was thus allowed in part, limited to setting aside the said direction. The Court expressly left the merits of the civil dispute untouched, noting that the broader question of tribal inheritance laws must be addressed by Parliament or through proper executive notification, not via judicial pronouncements made without jurisdiction.

This judgment restores clarity to a vital area of personal law involving Scheduled Tribes and their customary rights, and affirms the constitutional scheme which reserves legislative power to extend or alter legal regimes applicable to tribal communities. In a sharp and unequivocal message, the Supreme Court has emphasized that judicial progressivism cannot bypass constitutional procedure:

“Law must evolve—but its evolution must come via the legislative process, not judicial fiat.”

The ruling is a timely reminder of the limits of judicial activism, especially in culturally sensitive and legally complex areas such as tribal succession.

Date of Decision: 08 October 2025