Supreme Court Upholds Exclusion of Scheduled Tribes from Hindu Succession Act, Rebukes High Court for Judicial Overreach

NEW DELHI, October 8, 2025 — In a significant ruling that reinforces the primacy of customary law for India's tribal communities, the Supreme Court has set aside a Himachal Pradesh High Court directive that had sought to apply the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA) to Scheduled Tribes. The judgment, delivered by a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra, clarifies the statutory bar under Section 2(2) of the HSA and underscores the constitutional separation of powers, placing the onus for reform squarely on the legislature.

The apex court, in the case of Nawang and Another v. Bahadur and Others , held that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing sweeping directions on an issue that was neither pleaded nor substantially involved in the original dispute. This decision not only reiterates the existing legal framework governing tribal inheritance but also highlights the ongoing tension between preserving cultural autonomy and advancing gender equality through judicial intervention.

---

The High Court's Abrogated Directive

The case originated from a 2015 judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, which, while deciding a second appeal, took a significant step towards judicial activism. In paragraph 63 of its order, the High Court declared that daughters in the state's tribal areas should inherit property in accordance with the HSA, not customary laws. The court reasoned that this was necessary "to prevent the women from social injustice and prevention of all forms of exploitation."

This directive was celebrated by gender rights advocates but was legally contentious. It sought to unilaterally extend a statute that contains an express exclusionary clause. The Supreme Court's intervention was sought to determine the validity of this judicial extension of law.

Supreme Court’s Reaffirmation of Statutory Limits

The Supreme Court bench unequivocally overturned the High Court's order, deeming it legally unsustainable. The core of the judgment rests on the unambiguous language of Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 , which states:

“Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the members of any Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of clause (25) of Article 366 of the Constitution unless the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, otherwise directs.”

Justices Karol and Mishra observed that no such notification has ever been issued by the Central Government for any Scheduled Tribe in Himachal Pradesh or elsewhere. The bench noted that the High Court's direction was not only contrary to this explicit statutory provision but was also an extraneous observation.

"In view of the provisions of Section 2 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 no such directions... could have been issued by the High Court, more so in a case where the issue was neither directly nor substantially involved in the intra-party appeal," the Court held. It emphasized that judicial pronouncements must be confined to the issues framed and arguments advanced by the parties, and the High Court had impermissibly ventured into the domain of legislative policy.

Constitutional Framework and Precedents

The Supreme Court's decision is firmly rooted in established constitutional principles and a consistent line of judicial precedents. The judgment referenced Article 342 of the Constitution , which grants the President the exclusive power to specify and de-notify Scheduled Tribes. The judiciary cannot, through interpretation, alter these lists or the legal status of the communities on them.

The bench relied heavily on its recent rulings in Tirith Kumar & Ors. v. Daduram & Ors. (2024) and Kamla Neti v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2023), both of which reiterated the exclusion of Scheduled Tribes from the HSA's purview. In those cases, the Court had also expressed its concern about the potential for gender discrimination under certain customary laws and urged Parliament to consider amending the Act. In Kamla Neti , the Court remarked it was "high time for the Central Government to look into the matter."

This consistent stance indicates a judicial preference for legislative reform over judicial fiat. The Court is signalling that while the goal of gender equality is paramount, achieving it by bypassing clear legislative intent and constitutional procedure is improper. The judgment also cited the landmark case of Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar (1996), which established that customary laws, which vary significantly among different tribes, govern succession for these communities, to the exclusion of personal laws like the HSA or the Indian Succession Act.

The Dichotomy: Customary Law vs. Gender Justice

At the heart of this legal debate is the complex interplay between the State's constitutional mandate to protect the distinct culture and customs of tribal communities and its commitment to ensuring fundamental rights, including the right to equality under Article 14.

Customary laws among India’s over 700 Scheduled Tribes are diverse. Many are patrilineal, like those of the Gonds and Santhals, where property, particularly land, traditionally passes to male heirs. This can leave women economically vulnerable, without access to vital agricultural resources.

Conversely, some communities, such as the Khasis of Meghalaya, are matrilineal, with property passing from mother to daughter. The HSA's exclusionary clause was intended to respect this diversity and prevent the imposition of a uniform code on communities with deeply entrenched, unique social structures.

However, the reality for a majority of tribal women under patriarchal customs is one of significant disadvantage. The High Court's 2015 order was a direct attempt to remedy this perceived injustice by applying the gender-equal principles of the amended HSA, which guarantees equal inheritance rights to daughters. The Supreme Court's reversal, while legally sound, brings the focus back to the unresolved question of how to balance cultural preservation with the fundamental rights of women.

Implications for the Legal Community and Future Reforms

For legal practitioners, the Nawang judgment provides definitive clarity: succession matters for clients belonging to Scheduled Tribes must be adjudicated based on their specific, proven customary laws, not the Hindu Succession Act. Proving the existence and applicability of a custom will remain a critical aspect of litigation in this area.

The decision also serves as a crucial reminder of the boundaries of judicial review. While courts can strike down laws for violating fundamental rights, they cannot legislate or extend statutes beyond their intended scope. The ruling subtly chastises the High Court for its "judicial creativity," reinforcing the doctrine of separation of powers.

The ball is now firmly in the court of the executive and legislature. The Supreme Court's repeated calls for reform in Kamla Neti , Tirith Kumar , and now implicitly in Nawang , create a compelling moral and constitutional pressure on the Central Government to act. Potential pathways for reform include: 1. A Central Government Notification: Issuing a notification under Section 2(2) of the HSA to extend its provisions to certain or all Scheduled Tribes. 2. Legislative Amendment: Amending the Act to remove the exclusionary clause, perhaps with certain safeguards or opt-out provisions for matrilineal tribes. 3. Encouraging Codification: Supporting tribal communities in codifying their own customary laws to ensure they are consistent with constitutional principles of equality and justice.

Until such reforms materialize, the legal landscape for inheritance among Scheduled Tribes will remain a patchwork of diverse customs, with the Supreme Court's latest ruling cementing the status quo and reaffirming that change must come from the lawmakers, not the courts.