How can India reconcile the protection of tribal identity with the constitutional mandate of gender equality in inheritance laws?

A balanced solution would involve context-sensitive legislative reform rather than blanket application of the HSA. Parliament can enact a special law governing succession among Scheduled Tribes, ensuring gender parity while respecting customary norms. Codification of customary laws, as seen in parts of Mizoram, provides a workable model.Such legislation could:Recognise community-specific practicesGuarantee equal inheritance rights to womenProvide dispute resolution mechanisms sensitive to tribal governance systemsThis approach aligns with constitutional principles by preserving cultural autonomy under Article 29 while upholding equality under Articles 14 and 15. Reform through consultation with tribal councils and women’s groups would ensure legitimacy and acceptance.

Rethinking Inheritance Rights for Tribal Women in India

Q: What is the legal position regarding the applicability of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 to Scheduled Tribes after the Supreme Court’s 2025 verdict?

The Supreme Court in Nawang v. Bahadur (2025) reaffirmed that the Hindu Succession Act (HSA), 1956 does not apply to Scheduled Tribes (STs) under any circumstances unless Parliament explicitly extends it. Section 2(2) of the Act clearly states that its provisions shall not apply to members of Scheduled Tribes unless notified by the Central Government. The Court overturned the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s attempt to extend inheritance rights to ‘Hinduised’ tribal daughters under the HSA, holding that such legislative expansion lies solely within Parliament’s domain.This judgment ended the earlier inconsistent judicial approach where some courts allowed tribal women inheritance rights if they had adopted Hindu customs. By doing so, the Court reaffirmed constitutional protection for tribal autonomy and customary laws under Articles 244 and 366(25), which recognise the distinct status of Scheduled Tribes.Thus, tribal inheritance continues to be governed by customary practices, unless a specific statutory intervention is made. The ruling clarifies legal uncertainty but also highlights the continuing gender gap in many tribal succession systems.

Exploring the implications of the Supreme Court's ruling on tribal women's inheritance rights and the need for a separate law.

Surya

•February 24, 2026•5 mins read

Inheritance rights debate continues for tribal women

Not Started

Tribal Women’s Inheritance Rights & the Hindu Succession Act: Constitutional and Legal Dimensions

1.Exclusion of Scheduled Tribes from the Hindu Succession Act, 1956

Women’s inheritance rights in tribal communities remain legally complex. Customary laws of many tribal societies do not grant women absolute property rights, especially in ancestral property.

The Hindu Succession Act (HSA), 1956 grants daughters equal inheritance rights in ancestral property. However, Section 2(2) explicitly excludes Scheduled Tribes (STs) from its application unless the Central Government directs otherwise.

This has created a dual legal regime—tribal women are excluded from statutory inheritance protections while also being subject to customary laws that may be patriarchal.

The tension lies between gender justice and protection of tribal autonomy. If unresolved, tribal women may remain structurally disadvantaged under both statutory and customary frameworks.

2. Judicial Inconsistency & the ‘Hinduisation’ Approach

Before 2025, courts sometimes extended inheritance rights to tribal women who had “Hinduised”—i.e., adopted Hindu customs after abandoning tribal practices. In such cases, courts interpreted them as falling within the definition of “Hindu” under Section 2(1) of the Act.

However, this approach conflicted with Section 2(2), which clearly states that the Act does not apply to Scheduled Tribes. It created uncertainty and forced tribal women to choose between asserting tribal identity and accessing statutory inheritance rights.

This practice blurred constitutional commitments under Articles 14 (Equality), 15 (Non-discrimination), and 29 (Cultural rights), while undermining the protective framework for indigenous communities.

Judicial expansion through ‘Hinduisation’ risked eroding tribal identity while attempting to secure gender equality, leading to doctrinal inconsistency.

3. Supreme Court Verdict (October 8, 2025): Nawang v. Bahadur

In Nawang v. Bahadur (2025), a Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra held that the Hindu Succession Act cannot be applied to Scheduled Tribes under any circumstances unless Parliament so provides.

The Court overturned a Himachal Pradesh High Court order that had extended inheritance rights under the HSA to “Hinduised” tribal daughters. It ruled that only Parliament has the authority to extend the Act to STs, and courts cannot direct legislative changes.

The judgment reaffirmed the constitutional validity of Section 2(2) and upheld the principle of special protection for indigenous communities under the legal system.

The ruling restores legislative supremacy and clarifies that inheritance among Scheduled Tribes remains governed by customary law unless Parliament intervenes.

4. Equality vs. Cultural Protection: Constitutional Dilemma

The verdict came months after the Supreme Court in Ram Charan v. Sukhram (2025) observed that exclusion of daughters from ancestral property violates the fundamental right to equality.

This raises a deeper constitutional question: Can gender justice for tribal women be achieved without diluting tribal identity? Should equality be ensured through general Hindu law or through a separate tailored framework?

The earlier judicial practice of including STs under Section 2(1) contradicted Section 2(2), effectively pressuring tribal communities to assimilate into the Hindu fold to claim rights.

On defining “Hindu,” the Supreme Court in Sastri Yagnapurushadji v. Muldas (1966) observed:

“It may broadly be described as a way of life and nothing more.” — Supreme Court (1966)

This expansive definition had facilitated interpretative inclusion, but the recent verdict restricts such extension when an explicit statutory exclusion exists.

The core dilemma is reconciling Articles 14 and 15 (equality) with Articles 29 and 244 (cultural autonomy and tribal protections). Ignoring either dimension risks constitutional imbalance.

5. Implications for Tribal Women

The judgment clarifies the legal position but leaves substantive concerns unresolved. Tribal women remain dependent on customary inheritance systems, many of which exclude daughters from coparcenary rights.

The exclusion of STs from HSA has been challenged as creating invidious discrimination between tribal and non-tribal women. However, the Court upheld the exclusion as constitutionally valid.

Thus, gender parity within tribal communities now hinges on legislative reform rather than judicial reinterpretation.

Legal certainty has been achieved, but substantive gender justice requires proactive policy intervention.

6. Way Forward: Legislative & Policy Solutions

The Supreme Court’s clarification presents an opportunity for Parliament to address the gap.

One possible approach is the enactment of a special legislation governing inheritance among Scheduled Tribes, ensuring gender parity while preserving cultural identity.

Another approach is codification and reform of customary succession laws, as seen in certain tribal-majority States such as Mizoram.

Possible Reform Pathways

Enact a separate statute ensuring equal inheritance rights for tribal women.
Codify customary laws with gender-sensitive amendments.
Allow community consultation to balance autonomy and equality.
Ensure reforms align with constitutional guarantees of equality and cultural protection.

Balanced reform must ensure that tribal women do not face discrimination under the guise of tradition, while respecting the constitutional mandate to protect indigenous identity.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s 2025 verdict in Nawang v. Bahadur has clarified that the Hindu Succession Act cannot be extended to Scheduled Tribes without parliamentary action. While it reinforces constitutional protection of tribal identity, it leaves unresolved the issue of gender inequality in customary inheritance systems.

The path forward lies in legislative reform that harmonises gender justice with cultural autonomy. Ensuring equal inheritance rights for tribal women within a culturally sensitive framework would strengthen both constitutional morality and social justice.

Quick Q&A

Everything you need to know

The Supreme Court in Nawang v. Bahadur (2025) reaffirmed that the Hindu Succession Act (HSA), 1956 does not apply to Scheduled Tribes (STs) under any circumstances unless Parliament explicitly extends it. Section 2(2) of the Act clearly states that its provisions shall not apply to members of Scheduled Tribes unless notified by the Central Government. The Court overturned the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s attempt to extend inheritance rights to ‘Hinduised’ tribal daughters under the HSA, holding that such legislative expansion lies solely within Parliament’s domain.

This judgment ended the earlier inconsistent judicial approach where some courts allowed tribal women inheritance rights if they had adopted Hindu customs. By doing so, the Court reaffirmed constitutional protection for tribal autonomy and customary laws under Articles 244 and 366(25), which recognise the distinct status of Scheduled Tribes.

Thus, tribal inheritance continues to be governed by customary practices, unless a specific statutory intervention is made. The ruling clarifies legal uncertainty but also highlights the continuing gender gap in many tribal succession systems.

The exclusion of STs from the HSA creates a tension between cultural autonomy and gender justice. While Article 15 guarantees equality and prohibits discrimination, Section 2(2) of the HSA excludes tribal women from statutory inheritance protections available to Hindu women. This has resulted in many tribal daughters being denied equal rights to ancestral property under customary laws.

The Supreme Court in Ram Charan v. Sukhram recognised that exclusion of daughters from ancestral property violates the fundamental right to equality. However, in the tribal context, courts have balanced equality with constitutional commitments to protect indigenous identity. The dilemma arises when customary laws perpetuate patriarchal norms.

The core issue is whether tradition can justify gender discrimination. While preserving tribal culture is constitutionally mandated, equality is also a basic feature of the Constitution. Reconciling these two values remains an unresolved policy challenge.

The earlier judicial practice of extending HSA benefits to tribal women who had ‘Hinduised’ raised serious constitutional concerns. On one hand, it attempted to secure gender justice by enabling daughters to inherit property. On the other hand, it effectively compelled tribal women to choose between their cultural identity and property rights.

This approach undermined the constitutional objective of protecting tribal distinctiveness under the Fifth and Sixth Schedules. It also contradicted Section 2(2) of the HSA, which explicitly excludes Scheduled Tribes. By broadening the definition of ‘Hindu’ under Section 2(1), courts risked judicial overreach and blurred the line between interpretation and legislation.

The 2025 verdict restores doctrinal clarity by rejecting Hinduisation as a legal workaround. However, it simultaneously exposes the absence of a comprehensive statutory framework to ensure gender parity within tribal inheritance systems.

A balanced solution would involve context-sensitive legislative reform rather than blanket application of the HSA. Parliament can enact a special law governing succession among Scheduled Tribes, ensuring gender parity while respecting customary norms. Codification of customary laws, as seen in parts of Mizoram, provides a workable model.

Such legislation could:

Recognise community-specific practices
Guarantee equal inheritance rights to women
Provide dispute resolution mechanisms sensitive to tribal governance systems

This approach aligns with constitutional principles by preserving cultural autonomy under Article 29 while upholding equality under Articles 14 and 15. Reform through consultation with tribal councils and women’s groups would ensure legitimacy and acceptance.

Post-2025, courts cannot directly apply the Hindu Succession Act to Scheduled Tribes. However, they can examine whether specific customary practices violate fundamental rights. The judiciary must balance constitutional morality with respect for community autonomy.

The court may assess whether the custom in question is essential to tribal identity or merely a patriarchal practice lacking cultural centrality. Precedents such as Shayara Bano demonstrate that customs inconsistent with fundamental rights can be struck down.

Ultimately, long-term resolution requires legislative intervention. While courts can provide relief in individual cases, systemic reform must come through Parliament, ensuring both gender justice and preservation of indigenous identity.