Can daughters in Scheduled Tribe families claim inheritance under Hindu Succession Act?

Case Overview

Court: Supreme Court of India
Coram: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Date of Judgment: 8 October 2025
Case: Nawang & Anr. v. Bahadur & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 4980 of 2017)

1. Factual Background and Procedural History

The present appeal arose from a judgment dated 23 June 2015 delivered by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in RSA No. 8/2003. The Supreme Court records that the challenge before it was limited in scope, focusing specifically on a direction issued by the High Court in paragraph 63 of its judgment.

The High Court had directed that daughters in tribal areas of Himachal Pradesh shall inherit property in accordance with the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA), instead of customary laws, with the stated aim of preventing social injustice and exploitation of women.

The Supreme Court noted that this direction did not arise directly from the issues framed in the case or from the pleadings of the parties. The appeal before the Supreme Court was therefore confined to examining the legality and propriety of this specific direction.

2. Identification of Legal Issues

The Supreme Court addressed the following key legal issues:

1. Whether the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 applies to members of Scheduled Tribes.
2. Whether the High Court was justified in issuing a general direction altering inheritance rules for tribal communities.
3. Whether such a direction could be issued when the issue was neither directly nor substantially involved in the appeal.

3. Arguments of the Parties

The judgment does not elaborate in detail on the full arguments of both parties. However, it indicates:

• The appellants challenged the validity of the High Court’s direction, particularly its applicability to Scheduled Tribes and its scope beyond the case.
• Assistance was rendered by counsel for the appellants and an amicus curiae, though the judgment does not provide a detailed breakdown of their submissions.

The Supreme Court primarily relied on statutory interpretation and precedent rather than extensive adversarial argumentation as recorded.

4. Court’s Analysis and Reasoning

(a) Applicability of the Hindu Succession Act to Scheduled Tribes

The Court emphasized the express language of Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which states that the Act shall not apply to members of any Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of Article 366(25) of the Constitution, unless the Central Government directs otherwise by notification.

The Court held that:

• The statutory language is clear and unambiguous.
• There is no scope for judicial reinterpretation to extend the Act to Scheduled Tribes in the absence of a notification.
• Therefore, HSA cannot apply to Scheduled Tribes.

(b) Reliance on Precedent

The Court relied on its earlier decision in Tirith Kumar & Ors. v. Daduram & Ors., which reaffirmed that Scheduled Tribes are excluded from the HSA unless specifically notified.

It also referred to observations from cases such as:

• Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar
• Ahmedabad Women Action Group (AWAG) v. Union of India

These decisions collectively recognize that customary laws govern succession among tribal communities, and statutory succession laws like the HSA do not automatically apply.

(c) Constitutional Framework

The Court discussed the constitutional scheme under Articles 341 and 342, noting that Scheduled Tribes are identified through Presidential notification, and any change to their status requires such formal process.

(d) Scope of Appellate Jurisdiction

A critical aspect of the Court’s reasoning was procedural:

• The High Court’s direction was beyond the scope of the appeal.
• The issue of applying HSA to tribal inheritance was neither directly nor substantially in issue.
• The direction did not arise from pleadings or framed issues.

The Supreme Court emphasized that courts must confine themselves to questions properly arising in the case, and avoid issuing broad, policy-driven directions unrelated to the dispute.

(e) Policy Considerations

While the High Court invoked considerations of gender justice and social reform, the Supreme Court held that such objectives cannot override clear statutory provisions.

The Court implicitly reaffirmed the principle that policy changes must come through legislation or valid executive notification, not judicial expansion contrary to statutory text.

5. Final Conclusion and Holding

The Supreme Court:

• Set aside and expunged paragraph 63 of the High Court’s judgment.
• Held that the High Court’s direction applying the Hindu Succession Act to Scheduled Tribes was legally unsustainable.

Ratio / Core Legal Principle:

1. Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act explicitly excludes Scheduled Tribes from its application unless notified otherwise by the Central Government.
2. Courts cannot extend statutory provisions to Scheduled Tribes contrary to this express exclusion.
3. Appellate courts cannot issue directions on issues not arising from the pleadings or framed issues in the case.