Context

• The issue of inheritance rights for tribal women stands at the intersection of gender justice, constitutional protection, and indigenous identity.
• The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 grants daughters equal rights in ancestral property, yet it expressly excludes Scheduled Tribes.
• Consequently, many tribal women remain subject to customary laws that often deny them equal or absolute property rights.
• The Supreme Court’s ruling in Nawang v. Bahadur clarified that the Act cannot apply to Scheduled Tribes unless Parliament decides otherwise.
• While this resolves long-standing legal ambiguity, it sharpens the debate between equality and cultural autonomy.

Historical Background: The Legal Exclusion of Scheduled Tribes

• Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act explicitly bars its application to Scheduled Tribes unless notified by the Central Government.
• This exclusion was intended to preserve tribal customs, social practices, and community-based systems of inheritance.
• However, the result has been a dual framework: non-tribal Hindu women benefit from statutory reform, while tribal women remain governed by traditional norms.
• This distinction produces legal disparity among women based solely on tribal status and reinforces structural inequalities within certain communities.

Judicial Inconsistency and the Practice of “Hinduisation”

• Prior to 2025, courts adopted inconsistent interpretations. In some cases, inheritance rights were extended to tribal women who had adopted Hindu customs, a process described as Hinduisation.
• Courts relied on a broad reading of Section 2(1), treating such individuals as falling within the scope of Hindu.
• This interpretation overlooked the overriding effect of Section 2(2).
• The consequence was judicial inconsistency, uncertainty in property disputes, and pressure on women to negotiate between tribal identity and statutory rights.
• The approach risked weakening constitutional guarantees meant to protect indigenous communities from forced assimilation.

The Supreme Court’s Clarification: Nawang v. Bahadur (2025)

• In Nawang v. Bahadur, the Supreme Court overturned a High Court decision that had granted inheritance rights to ‘Hinduised’ tribal daughters.
• The Bench reaffirmed that only Parliament holds the authority to extend the Act to Scheduled Tribes.
• Two principles were reinforced:
  • Legislative supremacy over judicial expansion.
  • Continued governance of tribal inheritance by customary practices unless validly amended by statute.
• The ruling restored doctrinal clarity and upheld the constitutional design that provides special protection to indigenous communities.

Equality Versus Cultural Protection: A Constitutional Dilemma

• The judgment followed closely after Ram Charan v. Sukhram, where exclusion of daughters from ancestral property was held to violate fundamental rights and Article 14 guarantees of equality.
• The constitutional tension becomes evident:
  • The commitment to gender equality demands equal inheritance rights.
  • The framework protecting Scheduled Tribes seeks to preserve distinct customs and institutions.
• Prioritising tribal autonomy without addressing internal inequalities may perpetuate discrimination. Conversely, imposing uniform statutory law risks eroding cultural identity.
• Balancing constitutional morality with respect for tradition remains a central challenge.

Defining Hindu and the Question of Identity

• In Sastri Yagnapurushadji v. Muldas Brudardas Vaishya, Hinduism was described broadly as a way of life, not confined to a single doctrine or prophet.
• Conversion depends on bona fide intention and conduct.
• However, religious conversion does not automatically dissolve tribal membership if customary practices continue.
• Granting rights based solely on religious alignment risks reducing tribal status to a matter of faith rather than recognizing it as a distinct socio-cultural identity.
• The earlier reliance on Hinduisation effectively created a conditional path to equality, undermining the idea that indigenous communities deserve both recognition and protection without sacrificing their heritage.

The Need for Legislative Reform

• The reaffirmation of Section 2(2) leaves unresolved concerns about discrimination under certain customary systems.
• If statutory reform remains inapplicable and customs deny equal rights, tribal women may continue to face exclusion justified as tradition.
• A sustainable solution requires legislative reform. Parliament may consider:
  • Enacting a special statute for tribal succession.
  • Codifying customary laws with safeguards ensuring gender parity.
  • Designing reforms that preserve cultural distinctiveness while securing equality.
• Such an approach would avoid forced assimilation into Hindu law and instead create a framework rooted in both social justice and community autonomy.

Conclusion

• The ruling in Nawang v. Bahadur decisively ends judicial ambiguity surrounding the application of the Hindu Succession Act to Scheduled Tribes.
• It reinforces legislative authority, protects tribal autonomy, and rejects inheritance claims based on conditional Hinduisation.
• Yet the deeper constitutional question persists: how to harmonize equality with cultural preservation.
• Protecting identity cannot justify continued exclusion, and enforcing uniformity cannot erase diversity.
• Meaningful progress depends on thoughtful parliamentary intervention that secures equal inheritance rights, respects customary governance, and advances the broader goals of substantive equality and constitutional justice.