A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court in Ram Charan & Ors. v. Sukhram & Ors., [2025] 8 S.C.R. 272, delivered on 17 July 2025, revisited the deeply entrenched issue of gender inequality within tribal succession laws. The pivotal question before the Court was whether a tribal woman or her legal heirs could rightfully claim an equal share in ancestral property when no custom specifically granted or barred such rights. The appellants, heirs of a tribal woman named Dhaiya, sought partition of their maternal grandfather’s property. The trial court, first appellate court, and subsequently the Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed their claim, holding that no custom affirmatively granting succession rights to tribal women had been proved, and that Hindu Succession Act, 1956, under Section 2(2), excluded Scheduled Tribes from its scope. The Supreme Court, however, overturned these judgments, stressing that denial of rights in the absence of a contrary custom amounted to gender discrimination and a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court further restored the applicability of the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875, particularly Section 6, which mandates decisions based on justice, equity, and good conscience where no specific law applies. It highlighted that customs cannot remain static in perpetuating patriarchal exclusion and emphasized the Constitution’s commitment to gender equality. By extending equal inheritance rights to the heirs of a tribal woman, the Court aligned customary practices with the constitutional ethos, comparable to reforms introduced under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, granting daughters coparcenary rights. This judgment therefore reinforces the jurisprudence on tribal women’s succession rights, constitutional equality, and the dynamic evolution of customary law.

Keywords: Tribal women right in ancestral property, Article 14 equality, Justice equity and good conscience, Customary succession, Gender equality, Scheduled Tribes, Central Provinces Laws Act, Hindu Succession Act, Constitutional rights in inheritance.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title: Ram Charan & Ors. v. Sukhram & Ors.

ii) Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 9537 of 2025

iii) Judgement Date: 17 July 2025

iv) Court: Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Joymalya Bagchi

vi) Author: Justice Sanjay Karol

vii) Citation: [2025] 8 S.C.R. 272 : 2025 INSC 865

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Article 14, Article 15(1), Articles 38 and 46 of the Constitution of India

• Section 2(2), Hindu Succession Act, 1956

• Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875, especially Sections 4 and 6

• Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case: The judgments of the Trial Court (2008), First Appellate Court (2009), and the High Court of Chhattisgarh (2022) dismissing succession claims of tribal women were set aside.

x) Case Related to Law Subjects: Constitutional Law, Property Law, Succession Law, Customary Law, Gender Justice, Tribal Rights.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The dispute emanates from the inheritance claims of legal heirs of Dhaiya, a tribal woman from the Gond community. Historically, tribal inheritance practices often excluded women, rooted in patriarchal customary law. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, under Section 2(2), excludes Scheduled Tribes from its purview unless specifically notified. Thus, in the absence of codified law, disputes among Scheduled Tribes are determined by customs, failing which by the principle of justice, equity, and good conscience. The appellants sought recognition of their mother’s share in the ancestral property of her father, Bhajju alias Bhanjan Gond, which was denied by lower courts on the ground of absence of proof of custom affirming female succession. The Supreme Court considered the interplay of customary law, constitutional equality, and the repeal of Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875, ultimately holding that exclusion of women when custom is silent violates Article 14. The case thus foregrounds constitutional supremacy in protecting gender equality in tribal inheritance.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellants were heirs of Dhaiya, the daughter of Bhajju Gond, who had six children, five sons and one daughter. The appellants demanded partition of their maternal grandfather’s property in 1992 when other male heirs denied their share. The Trial Court (2008) dismissed the suit, holding that the appellants failed to prove a custom entitling tribal women to inheritance. The First Appellate Court (2009) affirmed, stating no evidence existed that heirs of female members could inherit. The High Court of Chhattisgarh (2022) also upheld dismissal, reasoning that the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875 had been repealed in 2018, and that Scheduled Tribes were excluded from the Hindu Succession Act. The Supreme Court thus had to decide whether the absence of a proven custom could itself deny inheritance rights to tribal women and their heirs.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether a tribal woman or her legal heirs are entitled to equal share in ancestral property in absence of a specific custom?

ii) Whether justice, equity, and good conscience under Section 6 of the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875 remain applicable post-repeal?

iii) Whether denial of inheritance rights to women in absence of explicit exclusion violates Article 14 of the Constitution?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for the appellants argued that their mother, being a daughter, was equally entitled to inheritance from her father’s estate. They relied on the principle that in absence of codified law, courts must apply justice, equity, and good conscience under Section 6 of the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875. They emphasized that denying women’s rights in absence of prohibition entrenches patriarchal discrimination, contrary to Article 14 and Article 15(1). They referred to Daduram v. Bhuri Bai (SA No. 270 of 2023) where the High Court recognized such rights. They also drew parallels with reforms under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, which granted daughters coparcenary rights, arguing for constitutional uniformity across tribal communities.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for respondents argued that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, excluded Scheduled Tribes, and therefore the appellants could not claim rights under it. They further contended that the appellants had failed to prove any custom granting inheritance rights to tribal women. They relied on Bihari v. Yashwantin (1973 R.N. 64) where it was held that the Gond community is governed by its own traditions. They argued that since no specific custom was proved, the female heirs could not succeed. They also cited judgments like Salekh Chand v. Satya Gupta (2008) 13 SCC 119 and Aliyathammuda Pookoya v. Cheriyakoya (2019) 16 SCC 1, which stressed on strict proof of custom in succession matters.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i) Article 14, Constitution of India – Equality before law and equal protection of laws.
ii) Article 15(1), Constitution of India – Prohibits discrimination on grounds including sex.
iii) Section 2(2), Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Excludes Scheduled Tribes unless notified.
iv) Section 6, Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875 – Mandates justice, equity, and good conscience in absence of codified law.
v) Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 – Granted coparcenary rights to daughters, reflecting constitutional gender equality.

I) JUDGEMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that tribal women and their heirs are entitled to equal inheritance rights when no custom prohibits the same. Denial of such rights violates Article 14, which prohibits gender-based discrimination. The Court further clarified that the repeal of the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875 did not extinguish accrued rights under Section 6, as protected by its savings clause. Hence, principles of justice, equity, and good conscience applied, crystallizing the rights of the deceased woman upon her father’s death.

b. Obiter Dicta

The Court observed that customs cannot remain frozen in time, especially when they perpetuate gender exclusion. Laws and customs must evolve with constitutional morality, and courts cannot allow traditions to be used as a shield for patriarchal practices. It emphasized that absence of positive evidence of women’s rights cannot justify presuming exclusion, as that would invert the equality principle.

c. Guidelines

The Court laid down:

1. In cases involving Scheduled Tribes, if no codified law or proven custom governs succession, justice, equity, and good conscience must be applied.

2. Accrued rights crystallized prior to repeal of a statute remain enforceable despite repeal.

3. Silence of custom cannot justify exclusion of women from inheritance; equality must be presumed.

4. Courts must read customs in line with constitutional principles of gender justice and equality.

5. Any interpretation of succession law must harmonize with the spirit of Article 14 and Article 15(1).

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This judgment is a landmark for tribal women’s rights in India. By applying Article 14, the Supreme Court dismantled the patriarchal presumption that silence of custom equals exclusion. It recognized that rights accrue at the time of succession and cannot be defeated by subsequent repeal of enabling statutes. It also harmonized customary law with constitutional values, affirming that justice cannot be sacrificed at the altar of tradition. This case bridges the gap left by statutory exclusion of Scheduled Tribes from the Hindu Succession Act, reinforcing that constitutional morality overrides patriarchal customs. The Court’s reliance on precedents such as Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248, Air India v. Nergesh Meerza (1981) 4 SCC 335, and Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) 9 SCC 1, further anchors the judgment within India’s equality jurisprudence. It thus sets a progressive precedent for ensuring tribal women’s inheritance rights in line with constitutional equality.

K) REFERENCES

1. Salekh Chand v. Satya Gupta, (2008) 13 SCC 119.

2. Ratanlal v. Sundarabai Govardhandas Samsuka, (2018) 11 SCC 119.

3. Aliyathammuda Beethathebiyyappura Pookoya v. Pattakal Cheriyakoya, (2019) 16 SCC 1.

4. Daduram v. Bhuri Bai, SA No. 270 of 2023.

5. Tirith Kumar v. Daduram, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3810.

6. Niemla Textile Finishing Mills Ltd. v. 2nd Punjab Tribunal, 1957 SCC OnLine SC 64.

7. Superintendent and Remembrancer v. Corporation of Calcutta, 1966 SCC OnLine SC 42.

8. M. Siddiq v. Suresh Das, (2020) 1 SCC 1.

9. Western U.P. Electric Power & Supply Co. v. State of U.P., (1969) 1 SCC 817.

10. Air India v. Nergesh Meerza, (1981) 4 SCC 335.

11. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248.

12. State of J&K v. Triloki Nath Khosa, (1974) 1 SCC 19.

13. Vijay Lakshmi v. Punjab University, (2003) 8 SCC 440.

14. Shayara Bano v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1.

15. Mst. Sarwango v. Mst. Urchamahin, 2013 SCC OnLine Chh 5.

16. Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875 (Sections 4 and 6).

17. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (Section 2(2)).

18. Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.

19. Constitution of India – Articles 14, 15(1), 38, 46.