In a significant ruling touching upon tribal inheritance rights, the Supreme Court of India on October 8, 2025, set aside a Himachal Pradesh High Court direction that had extended the Hindu Succession Act (HSA), 1956, to daughters in tribal areas. The Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra held that such directions could not stand in law since the Act expressly excludes Scheduled Tribes unless notified by the Centre.
Background
The case arose from a 2015 judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in RSA No. 8 of 2003, which declared that “daughters in tribal areas shall inherit property in accordance with the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and not by customary law.” The High Court had reasoned that women in tribal regions must not face “social injustice or exploitation” and that “laws must evolve with the times.”
However, appellants Nawang and another challenged the decision before the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing directions unrelated to the issues actually contested between the parties.
Court’s Observations
During the hearing, the apex court referred extensively to its earlier judgment in Tirith Kumar & Ors. v. Daduram & Ors. (2024), where it had reaffirmed that the Hindu Succession Act does not apply to Scheduled Tribes unless the Central Government specifically notifies otherwise under Section 2(2) of the Act.
“The words of the statute are explicit,” the Bench observed, reading from the text. “The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, cannot apply to members of any Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of Article 366(25) unless the Central Government directs otherwise.”
The court also recalled precedents such as Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar and State of Maharashtra v. Milind, both of which underscored that tribal communities are governed by their customs unless Parliament intervenes.
Justice Karol, speaking for the Bench, noted that the High Court’s observations in paragraph 63 of its order were “neither directly nor substantially involved in the intra-party appeal.” He remarked that the directions “were not emanating from any of the issues framed or pleas raised by the parties.”
Decision
Finding the High Court’s directions legally unsustainable, the Supreme Court ordered paragraph 63 of the 2015 judgment to be expunged from the record. The appeal was disposed of with those directions.
Before closing, the court acknowledged the assistance of advocate Ms. Rebecca Mishra, who served as amicus curiae, and Mr. Rajesh Gupta, counsel for the appellants.
With this ruling, the top court has reaffirmed the constitutional boundaries governing tribal personal laws effectively preserving the autonomy of tribal customs unless changed by Parliament or the Central Government through due notification.
Case Title: Nawang & Anr. vs Bahadur & Ors.
Case Type: Civil Appeal No. 4980 of 2017
Date of Judgment: October 8, 2025
