The Supreme Court of India has formally initiated a review of the constitutional validity of a provision within the Jamatia Customary Laws Act, 2017, which allegedly permits the resolution of rape and other serious criminal offences through the payment of a financial penalty. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana issued notice to the State of Tripura and the Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council (TTAADC), requiring their formal responses to the public interest litigation (PIL) by November 27, 2026.

The petition, filed by Madhumita Bhattacharya, specifically targets Section 143 of the Act. The petitioner contends that this provision, when read alongside Section 164 which governs penalties and fines, establishes a framework for the private settlement of heinous crimes. Under the current challenge, the court is being asked to declare this legislative provision unconstitutional on the grounds that it creates a parallel legal system that undermines the dignity of victims and the reach of national criminal law.

Challenges to Customary Authority

At the heart of the litigation is the argument that customary law, while protected under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution for the preservation of tribal culture and social practices, cannot supersede the fundamental tenets of the Indian Penal Code or other national criminal statutes. The plea emphasizes that the Sixth Schedule was never intended to grant customary bodies the authority to adjudicate or compound offences as grave as sexual violence.

The petitioner argues that the provision in question effectively treats acts of sexual assault as civil disputes that can be satisfied through a payment of up to ₹1 lakh. By allowing the accused to settle such matters financially, the statute allegedly creates an arbitrary and unconstitutional classification that denies tribal women the same protection and justice afforded to other citizens under national law.

In its legal submission, the petition states: “Section 143 of the Act, read with Section 164 (Penalties and Fines), essentially places a price tag on a woman's dignity. By permitting an accused to be absolved of grievous sexual violence via financial means, the provision dangerously dilutes the line between a minor traffic offence and a heinous criminal act involving intent to cause hurt.”

Legal Precedent and Constitutional Limits

The petition relies on established legal principles, drawing support from landmark judgments such as Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Madanlal . These precedents have consistently held that serious crimes, particularly those involving sexual violence, are not merely private wrongs between individuals but are offenses against the state and society at large. Consequently, such matters cannot be settled privately or compounded by parties, as this would violate the public policy embedded in criminal justice.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the TTAADC, while empowered under the Sixth Schedule to oversee matters pertaining to land, social customs, and tribal identity, has exceeded its legislative jurisdiction by attempting to institutionalize a mechanism that functions independently of, and often in contradiction to, the country’s core criminal justice framework. The petition contends that the state’s failure to prevent such practices results in a significant erosion of the constitutional rights of tribal women, effectively excluding them from the universal safeguards provided by federal law.

Next Steps in Judicial Proceedings

During the hearing on October 26, 2026, the Supreme Court condoned the delay in refiling the petition and directed that the matter be tagged with Writ Petition (Civil) No. 88 of 2026, which involves similar questions of law. The court has maintained a neutral stance at this preliminary stage, noting that it has not yet examined the merits of the challenge.

The upcoming hearing on November 27, 2026, is expected to focus on the response provided by the State of Tripura and the TTAADC. The court has also directed the respondents to produce all relevant records concerning the adoption and implementation of the Jamatia Customary Laws Act. As the proceedings move forward, the judiciary will be tasked with determining whether the autonomy granted to tribal councils under the Constitution allows for such provisions, or if the fundamental right to equality and the sanctity of the national criminal code must take precedence over customary settlement practices.

For now, the legal challenge remains in its initial phase, with the court focusing on gathering the necessary documentation to test the statutory provision against constitutional standards. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the intersection of customary law and constitutional rights, potentially redefining the scope of authority for local tribal bodies in matters involving grave criminal acts.