Introduction

Property ownership is not merely an economic question; it is fundamentally about power, dignity, and equality. For tribal women in India, exclusion from statutory inheritance rights has been one of the deepest forms of gender injustice. The Supreme Court’s July 2025 judgment striking down customary exclusions in tribal property rights represents both a historic corrective and a challenge: how to reconcile tribal customs with constitutional equality. The debate is timely, following International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples (August 9) and growing recognition of indigenous rights worldwide.

Why in the News

In Ram Charan and Ors. vs Sukhram and Ors. (July 17, 2025), the Supreme Court equated the exclusion of daughters from ancestral property in tribal communities with a violation of their fundamental right to equality. This is a landmark first, since earlier judgments such as Madhu Kishwar vs State of Bihar (1996) had refrained from striking down such customs. The judgment underscores the scale of injustice: as per the Agriculture Census 2015–16, only 16.7% of ST women own land compared to 83.3% of men. This ruling, therefore, marks a dramatic departure from precedent and could fundamentally reshape tribal women’s access to property, inheritance, and dignity.

Why are tribal women excluded from property rights?

1. Customary laws: Tribals in Scheduled Areas follow customary laws on marriage, succession, and adoption, which largely exclude women from land inheritance.
2. Economic contributions ignored: Despite tribal women contributing more to farms than men, they are legally excluded.
3. Fear of land alienation: Communities argue that women marrying outside the tribe may lead to loss of tribal land to outsiders.
4. Communitarian land ownership myth: Though land is termed “communitarian,” in practice, compensation from land sales rarely goes to gram sabhas; male members retain control.

How did the courts address this case?

1. Trial and appellate courts: Initially dismissed the claim, holding that no Gond custom granted daughters property rights.
2. High Court intervention: Rejected Hindu Succession Act application but granted equality, noting that denying women rights under “custom” entrenched discrimination.
3. Supreme Court ruling: Declared exclusion of daughters unconstitutional, setting a precedent for gender justice in tribal inheritance.

What does the historical judicial background reveal?

1. Madhu Kishwar (1996): SC upheld customary exclusions, citing possible chaos in existing law.
2. Prabha Minz vs Martha Ekka (2022, Jharkhand HC): Recognized Oraon women’s inheritance rights, since defendants could not prove a valid exclusionary custom.
3. Kamala Neti (2022, SC): Affirmed tribal women’s property rights in land acquisition compensation.

Why is codification or a new law necessary?

1. Exclusion from Hindu Succession Act: Section 2(2) leaves tribal women outside its ambit.
2. Proposal for Tribal Succession Act: A separate codified framework could balance equality with respect for indigenous identity.
3. Precedent in Hindu & Christian laws: Their codification addressed similar issues of gender parity and succession, showing a workable model.

What makes this issue urgent and significant?

1. Data on landholding: Only 16.7% ST women own land, highlighting systemic exclusion.
2. Link to empowerment: Property rights directly determine women’s bargaining power, social security, and protection against violence.
3. Constitutional mandate: Article 14 (equality), Article 15 (non-discrimination), and Article 21 (dignity) demand urgent correction.
4. Global context: International Day of Indigenous Peoples (August 9) reaffirms focus on indigenous rights.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s July 2025 judgment marks a historic turning point in advancing gender justice for tribal women. Yet, lasting reform requires more than judicial intervention, it needs legislative codification, social sensitization, and integration of constitutional values into tribal governance frameworks. Recognizing tribal women as equal stakeholders in ancestral property is not just a matter of law, but of justice, dignity, and true nation-building.

PYQ Relevance

[UPSC 2024] Despite comprehensive policies for equity and social justice, underprivileged sections are not yet getting the full benefits of affirmative action envisaged by the Constitution. Comment.

Linkage: This 2025 Supreme Court judgment on tribal women’s property rights directly illustrates the gap between constitutional promises of equality (Articles 14 & 15) and the reality of customary exclusions. Despite decades of affirmative action, only 16.7% of ST women own land, showing underutilization of protective policies. The case highlights how judicial intervention is now bridging the gap left by incomplete legislative and policy measures

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now