The Supreme Court of India, in Nawang & Anr. v. Bahadur & Ors. (2025), reaffirmed that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA) does not apply to members of Scheduled Tribes under Section 2(2) of the Act. A Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra set aside a 2015 Himachal Pradesh High Court direction that extended HSA inheritance rights to daughters in tribal areas, including the Sawara tribe, in the name of gender justice. The apex court held that such a directive went beyond the court’s jurisdiction and contradicted the statutory exclusion explicitly stated in the HSA, as no Central Government notification had extended the Act to Scheduled Tribes. Relying on precedents like Tirith Kumar v. Daduram (2024), Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar (1996), and Ahmedabad Women Action Group (AWAG) v. Union of India (1997), the Court reiterated that tribal inheritance is governed by customary laws unless Parliament or the Central Government provides otherwise. It underscored that only the President can amend Scheduled Tribe lists under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution. The ruling emphasized judicial restraint, preserving tribal autonomy over property rights while noting Parliament’s prerogative to legislate for uniform inheritance rights. The Court thus expunged the High Court’s paragraph 63 and disposed of the appeal.
Statutory and Constitutional Provisions
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 2(2)
Exact Text: “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.”
Simplified Explanation: The Hindu Succession Act does not automatically cover Scheduled Tribes; they are excluded unless the Central Government explicitly brings them under its scope through a notification.
Relevance: This provision is central to cases involving tribal inheritance, as it establishes the statutory exclusion of Scheduled Tribes from the Act’s application unless the government directs otherwise.
Constitution of India – Articles 341–342
Exact Text: These Articles empower the President to specify Scheduled Castes (Article 341) and Scheduled Tribes (Article 342) for each state or union territory by public notification.
Simplified Explanation: Only the President (or Parliament, by law) can declare or modify the list of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
Relevance: Demonstrates that the judiciary cannot extend the Hindu Succession Act to tribes without a Presidential or Parliamentary directive.
Constitution of India – Article 366(25)
Exact Text: Defines “Scheduled Tribes” as those tribal communities or parts of groups specified under Article 342.
Simplified Explanation: This clause provides the constitutional definition of who qualifies as a Scheduled Tribe.
Relevance: Ensures clarity about which communities the exclusion under Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act applies to.
Core Legal Topic
Exclusion of Scheduled Tribes from the Hindu Succession Act: Constitutional and Customary Balance in Inheritance Law
Introduction
The intersection of customary laws and codified inheritance statutes constitutes a delicate aspect of India’s legal pluralism. This case reaffirms the constitutional and legislative intent behind excluding Scheduled Tribes from the Hindu Succession Act (HSA) unless expressly notified. The Supreme Court’s 2025 decision revisits the debate over gender justice vis-à-vis tribal autonomy, questioning whether courts can read social reform into statutes that clearly exempt certain communities. The objective is to understand the legal bases for exclusion, the constitutional doctrine of non-interference with notified tribes, and judicial restraint in expanding statutory application. The case raises key questions: Can equity-driven judicial activism override express statutory exclusion? Should Parliament harmonize gender justice with tribal autonomy through reform?.
Contextual Understanding
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, sought to codify and modernize Hindu inheritance, aiming at greater gender equality. However, Section 2(2) preserved tribal autonomy, consistent with Article 342’s recognition of distinct Scheduled Tribes. Earlier rulings—Madhu Kishwar (1996) and Tirith Kumar (2024)—affirmed that unless Parliament acts, customary law prevails. Globally, similar respect for indigenous inheritance customs exists, as in Canada and South Africa, where constitutional protection encourages self-determination of tribal communities.
Definition & Scope
Customary law governs those communities recognized under Article 342 as Scheduled Tribes. The exclusion in Section 2(2) reflects legislative intent to respect social distinctiveness. The scope extends to property, marriage, and inheritance, but is limited by future legislative notifications. Judicial scope remains interpretive, not legislative.
Statutory Framework
The Hindu Succession Act (1956) operates alongside the Indian Constitution’s recognition of Scheduled Tribes. Amendments like the 2005 HSA reform improving daughters’ rights excluded tribes, keeping Section 2(2) intact. No Gazette notification has extended applicability to tribal groups such as Himachal’s Sawara tribe. Thus, any legal change must come via Parliament or executive order.
Key Components
- Custom vs. Codified Law: Tribal autonomy vs. uniform legal reform.
- Gender Justice within Tribes: Scope for internal cultural evolution rather than external statutory imposition.
- Judicial Restraint: Boundary between interpreting and legislating social reform.
- Presidential Power: Central role under Articles 341–342 to modify lists.
Critical Analysis and Judicial Interpretation
The law’s strength lies in preserving cultural autonomy and recognizing India’s diversity. However, it perpetuates gender inequality until legislative reform arrives. Judicial restraint ensures constitutional fidelity but may delay justice for tribal women. The legislative gap between gender equity and tribal autonomy persists due to political and cultural sensitivities.
The Supreme Court in Nawang & Anr. v. Bahadur & Ors. (2025) reaffirmed Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar (1996) that neither the Hindu Succession Act nor Indian Succession Act applies to Scheduled Tribes absent Central notification. In Tirith Kumar v. Daduram (2024), the Court emphasized that the President alone can modify tribal lists under Articles 341–342. Similarly, Ahmedabad Women Action Group (AWAG) v. Union of India (1997) upheld that personal laws, including tribal customs, are outside statutory assimilation without express legislative intent.
These precedents collectively shaped the principle that statutory codification cannot dilute indigenous customs. The 2025 judgment—by setting aside the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s overreach—underscored that even socially progressive measures must operate within statutory limits. It highlights a tension between equity and legality, affirming constitutional deference to legislative competence in cultural domains.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces that tribal inheritance remains under customary law pending any Central Government notification extending the HSA. While upholding constitutional propriety, it exposes the need for Parliament to deliberate on harmonizing gender justice with cultural protection. The ruling ensures judicial restraint and respects legislative supremacy over tribal rights.
