Supreme Court Bench Led by Justice S. Karol and J. Joymalya Bagchi Rule in Favor of Tribal Woman’s Legal Heirs: No Custom Can Deny Women Equal Share in Ancestral Property

Recently, the Supreme Court of India passed an important verdict in a matter of Ram Charan & Ors. v. Sukhram & Ors. a decision concerned with the rights to equality (in inheritance) to the tribal women as a fundamental right (Civil Appeal No. 9537 of 2025). Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Joymalya Bagchi gave this decision on July 17, 2025, quashing earlier judgments in which a tribal women and her legal heirs standing on an equal footing with a tribal male lineal descendant to the original ancestor with reference and right to inherited ancestral property were denied their equal share in said property.

✖

The Heart of the Matter: Tribal Women Property Rights

The main point before the Supreme Court was that can a tribal woman, or who can be her legal heirs, right to be given equal share in their ancestral property? The question comes out in the context of the constitutional objective of equality, especially in the kind of societal setting where much has been done towards achieving the ideal. With all these developments, the Court observed that even the equality aspect particularly on inheritance basis regardless of the biological setting still remains a matter that demands judicial consideration.

History of the CASE; Dhaiya, the battle to get fair share

The case was based on partition suit which was initiated by legal heirs of Dhaiya who was a female of a Scheduled Tribe. Dhaiya was the sixth child born in a family that was composed of five brothers, and one sister. Dhaiya was the legal heir to the appellants; the appellants wanted property belonging to their maternal grandfather, Bhajju as Bhanjan Gond to be partitioned on the reasoning that the mother, Dhaiya was worthy of an equal share. The grounds of the action occurred in October 1992 when some defendants declined to the allowance of the property, which made the appellant-plaintiffs to request the partitioning and declaration of the title in the Trial Court.

Criminal law journey through the Courts: Dismissal and appeal

On February 29, 2008, the Trial Court has ordered the dismissal of the suit based on the conclusion that the plaintiffs did not prove their caste traditions which would entitle them with rights to the land belonging to their father. Also, the court remarked that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 does not apply in regards to the succession in the Scheduled Tribes in Section 2(2) of the Act. The ruling of the Magistrate Court was supported by another court, the First Appellate Court on April 21, 2009, which too did not find any support that would indicate that the children of a female heir had a right in the property. These findings have later been upheld by the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur which has ruled that the appellant-plaintiffs could not prove that they had a right over the property in the manner of custom. The High Court also rejected the claim founded on justice, equity, and good conscience, saying the 1875 Act on the principles were repealed.

The Analysis of the Supreme Court: The Revision of Law and Justice

The Supreme Court painstaking analyzed the numerous aspects of the case. To begin with, it elucidated that the issue as to whether or not the parties had embraced the Hindu customs was no longer an issue, as it was evident that Scheduled Tribes had been expressly excluded in Hindu Succession Act, 1956, under Section 2(2) of the Act.

The next point the Court touched was the issue of custom. Although agreeing with the fact that to apply a custom, there must be a demonstration of its existence, the Court faulted the lower courts in having made a wrong assumption in thinking that there was an exclusionary custom and that it was the rule of the plaintiffs to prove otherwise. A different situation one in which inclusion was presumed could have been tried and the defendants would have had the obligation of proving the opposite as noted by the Supreme Court. This predilection towards the patriarchal, which was apparently an inference from the Hindu law, the Court said, does not happen to enter into the present case.

Justice, Equity and Good Conscience

One of the several portions of the Supreme Court argument was based on the use of the principle of justice, equity and good conscience. The High Court had been mistaken in holding that this principle is reflected in the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875, in Section 6 the whole of which is repealed. The Supreme Court indicated that the Repeal Act No. 4 of 2018 has a saving clause (Section 4), without which, no rights that may have accrued before the repeal of the Act would be in any way affected. The right to Dhaiya was accrued some 30 years prior to the filing of the plaint, hence was crystallized and it was not affected by the repeal. Consequently, the High Court should have made use of the 1875 Act, or to be precise, Section 6 to make a ruling.

The Court held reinvoked a maxim that states that justice, equity and good conscience exhausts where there is a gap in the law or a nonexistence of a governing law or custom. In this instance, there having been no custom proving the right of women to the property as held by the claimant by the plaintiffs, and as was vital to point out, there was also no custom to the opposite effect which could be shown by the defendants, the need to apply this principle became quintessential. The Court pointed out that customs just like laws cannot be stagnant and things should never be done in order to deny people their rights.

Article 14 and Gender Equality-Constitutional Imperative

In addition to the statutory and customary forces, the Supreme Court also based its ruling on the basic right to equality, which is contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Court could not find any rational basis or reasonable classification to hold back succession rights to the female gender and give it to the male ones when absolutely no prohibitive custom can be arrived at. A combination of all of the foregoing articles (Art. 14, Art. 15(1), Art. 38 and Art. 46) highlights the constitutional ethos of constitutional discrimination specifically based on the anti-sex discrimination stance.

The Court has cited some of the landmark cases such as Western U.P. Electric Power and Supply Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P., or Air India v. Nergesh Meerza, Maneka Gandhi Vs. The case of Union of India, and Shayara Bano v. To underline the idea of the dynamic and comprehensive Article 14 that challenges arbitrariness and delivers the fair manner of treatment and equality with regard to offerings the Union of India. The Court also compared it with the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, where it turns out that the daughters were also made coparceners to the joint family property which showed the purpose of the legislation to strike down the gender discrimination when it comes to inheritance.

A Step in Inheritance Inclusion

Keeping these exhaustive considerations in mind, Supreme Court clearly held that not giving Dhaiya her share in the property of her father at least when the custom is not found to say anything about it, would be against her right to equality as enshrined in Article 14. Thus the decision of the lower courts was overturned and the appellant- plaintiffs who were the legal heirs of Dhaiya were found to have a right in the equal share in the property. The decision is a great step forward in guaranteeing inclusive and equitable rights of inheritance, equality among tribal women in India as it goes in line with the constitutional requirement of unrestricted equality between genders.