The Madras High Court has recently sided with tribal women in their fight for equal succession rights. The Court noted that the Hindu Succession Law does not intend to exclude tribal women from its application, but rather to positively include them.
Clause (2) of Section 2 of the Hindu Succession Act states that the Act does not apply to Scheduled Tribe members unless the Central Government directs otherwise by notification in the official gazette.
Justice SM Subramaniam emphasised that the exclusion under Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act should not prevent tribal women from inheriting in areas where Hinduism and Buddhism are practised.
Justice Subramaniam stated, “Nothing has been shown about the community’s customs and practises, to which the parties to the lis in question belong. However, tribal women are barred from enacting the Hindu Succession Act. As a result, Subsection (2) of Section 2 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 will not prevent the inheritance of property by daughters from tribal areas where Hinduism and Buddhism are practised.”
The court also ordered the state government to take the necessary steps to issue notifications through the Central Government in order to protect tribal women’s rights in the state.
However, the Tamil Nadu government shall take the necessary steps to issue an appropriate notification through the Central Government under Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act 1956, in order to protect the equal property rights of tribal women in the state of Tamil Nadu.
The court also stated that the mere non-issuance or postponement of the notification cannot deprive tribal women of their right to family property. As a result, Section 2(2) was not a complete bar.
As a result, Section 2(2) should not be interpreted as a complete bar to invoking the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. It does, however, pave the way for the Central Government to notify tribal communities that have already moved forward and whose primitive customs and practises are no longer prevalent in the community for inheritance.
The court was hearing an appeal challenging the trial court’s orders, in which the trial court invoked the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act and held that tribal women, like other male coparcenors, are entitled to an equal share of their family property.
On appeal, the appellant argued that Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act expressly excludes tribal women from the application of the Hindu Succession Act, and thus the trial court applied the law incorrectly.
The respondents, on the other hand, contended that because the appellants failed to establish the custom and practise of the community to which they belong, they would be subject to the Hindu Succession Act. As a result, the trial court was correct in relying on the law.
It was also argued that tribal women could not be denied an equal share on par with other female Hindus in the state because doing so would be unconstitutional and discriminatory.
After determining that the parties belonged to a notified tribal community, the court proceeded to investigate the customs and practises that prevailed within their community in order to apply the exclusion clause contained in Section 2. (2). When no established custom and practise existed, the provisions of the Act will come into effect.
The court also observed that the legislature did not intend for any inequality or unconstitutionality, but rather to protect the community’s strong customs and practises. As a result, a positive interpretation of the legislation was required, rather than a negative interpretation that denied women an equal share.
