Why in the News?

The Supreme Court of India has affirmed that women of the Gond community, a Scheduled Tribe under Article 342, are entitled to inherit ancestral property, even where no explicit tribal custom confers this right.

Supreme Court Verdict on Gond Women’s Inheritance Rights:

• Background: Case concerned women of the Gond Scheduled Tribe seeking equal inheritance rights over their maternal grandfather’s ancestral property.
• Lower Court Rulings: The trial court and Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the plea, holding that no tribal custom granted such rights and placing the burden of proof on the women.
• Supreme Court Review: On 17 July 2025, a Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Joymalya Bagchi examined whether constitutional equality overrides unwritten tribal customs excluding women from succession.
• Legal Context: Under Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act (1956), Scheduled Tribes are excluded unless specifically notified—none apply to Gonds—so the dispute was governed by customary tribal law.

Supreme Court’s Ruling:

• Presumption of Equality: The Court reversed lower findings, holding that equality must be presumed unless a proven, valid custom denies it.
• Burden of Proof: Stated that custom cannot be presumed; it must be ancient, certain, and reasonable, proven through credible evidence.
• Gender Justice: Rejected patriarchal inferences drawn from Hindu traditions, asserting such predispositions have “no place” in the case.
• Guiding Principle: In absence of valid custom, courts must decide per “justice, equity, and good conscience.”

Constitutional Principles Applied:

• Article 14: Ensures equality before law; male-only inheritance lacks rational basis.
• Article 15(1):  Prohibits sex-based discrimination; used to strike down exclusion of women.
• Article 38: Mandates elimination of inequality across social and gender lines.
• Article 46:  Requires protection of Scheduled Tribes from exploitation and injustice.
• Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 cited for illustrating gender-equal intent, not direct applicability.

Constitutional–Customary Balance:

• Conflict: Between tribal autonomy under Fifth/Sixth Schedules and constitutional equality under Part III.
• Precedent Shift: Unlike Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar (1996), which upheld male-only inheritance, the 2025 ruling held that when custom is unproven or discriminatory, Article 14 prevails.
• Significance: Moves jurisprudence from deference to custom toward enforcement of constitutional morality, ensuring tribal women’s equal property rights.

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

Attend Now