New Delhi
In a landmark judgement that would go a long way in establishing gender equality, the Supreme Court on Thursday held that a tribal woman or her legal heirs are entitled to an equal share in ancestral property, just like the men in the family.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Joymalya Bagchi said denying the woman heir a right in the property only exacerbated gender division and discrimination, which the law should ensure to weed out. “When applying the principle of justice, equity and good conscience, the courts have to be mindful of the above and apply this otherwise open-ended principle contextually,” the bench said.
The apex court was hearing a plea by the children (and legal heirs) of Dhaiya. They sought an equal share in their maternal grandfather’s property. Their claim had been shot down by the family’s male heirs, who pointed to the custom of excluding women from succession and inheritances.
The trial court and the first appellate court also dismissed the plea by the legal heirs saying their mother had no right in the property of her father. It was held so for the reason that no evidence had been led to show that the children of a woman heir were also entitled to property.
The apex court struck down those rulings, pointing out they required Dhaiya to prove a custom allowing women to inherit rather than requiring the male heirs to prove that such exclusion is legally tenable. Though the SC acknowledged that Dhaiya had been unable to establish a custom of female succession, nevertheless, at the same time it pointed out that it was equally true that no custom to the contrary could be proved.
The Supreme Court also acknowledged the Hindu Succession Act does not apply to Scheduled Tribes, but that could not mean tribal women should be “automatically deprived of their inheritance”.
“There appears to be no rational nexus or reasonable classification for only males to be granted succession over the property of their forebears and not women, more so in the case where no prohibition to such effect can be shown to be prevalent as per law,” the SC bench stated.
“Article 15(1) states that the State shall not discriminate against any person on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. This, along with Articles 38 and 46, points to the collective ethos of the Constitution in ensuring that there is no discrimination against women,” it maintained.
The SC said denying the mother her share in her father’s property, when the custom was silent, would violate her right to equality vis-à-vis her brothers or those of her legal heirs vis-à-vis their cousin.
“Keeping with the principles of justice, equity and good conscience, read along with the overarching effect of Article 14 of the Constitution, the appellant-plaintiffs, being her legal heirs, are entitled to their equal share in the property,” it held.
The apex court observed that in the present case, if the views of the subordinate court were upheld, the woman and her successors would be denied a right to property on the basis of the absence of a positive assertion to such inheritance in custom. “However, customs too, like the law, cannot remain stuck in time and others cannot be allowed to take refuge in customs or hide behind them to deprive others of their right,” it added.
A provision of the Hindu Succession Act lays down that the law of succession should not apply to the members of Scheduled Tribes unless the Union of India, by notification in the official gazette, otherwise directs. The provision stipulates that a daughter in a Scheduled Tribe community cannot legally demand her share in the father’s property.
The apex court’s judgement said the issue also involved the question of violation of Article 14 (equality before law) of the Constitution.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said depriving women of ancestral inheritance was both unfair and discriminatory, and a violation of their right to equality, pointing to Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law, and Article 15, which disallows discrimination against any person on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.
“There is no justification for allowing only male heirs to inherit,” the SC said adding that denying a woman (or her heirs) rights in property only increases gender divide and discrimination, which the law must remedy.
