The Crossbill News Desk
The Supreme Court has clarified that the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA), are not applicable to members of Scheduled Tribes, reaffirming the legal position laid down in the statute.
A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra made the observation while setting aside a 2015 Himachal Pradesh High Court direction that had extended the provisions of the Act to daughters belonging to tribal communities in the State, Live Law reported.
The apex court held that the High Court’s ruling, which stated that daughters in Himachal’s tribal areas would inherit property under the Hindu Succession Act rather than through customary laws, was contrary to the clear mandate of Section 2(2) of the HSA.
As per Section 2(2) of the Act: “Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the members of any Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of clause (25) of Article 366 of the Constitution unless the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, otherwise directs.”
The case arose from a second appeal decided by the Himachal Pradesh High Court, which had observed that applying the Hindu Succession Act to tribal daughters would help prevent “social injustice and exploitation.”
However, the Supreme Court noted that this sweeping direction, made in paragraph 63 of the High Court’s judgment, was beyond the scope of the issues raised in the case and could not have been issued.
Relying on its earlier decision in Tirith Kumar & Ors. v. Daduram & Ors. (2024), the Bench reiterated that members of Scheduled Tribes are expressly excluded from the ambit of the Hindu Succession Act unless specifically notified by the Central Government.
"In view of the provisions of Section 2 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 no such directions extracted supra, could have been issued by the High Court, more so in a case where the issue was neither directly nor substantially involved in the intra-party appeal, arising out of the judgment and decree passed in a civil proceeding. Further, the directions issued by the High Court were not emanating from any one of the issues framed by the Court or pleas raised/agitated by the parties," the court observed.
A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra made the observation while setting aside a 2015 Himachal Pradesh High Court direction that had extended the provisions of the Act to daughters belonging to tribal communities in the State, Live Law reported.
The apex court held that the High Court’s ruling, which stated that daughters in Himachal’s tribal areas would inherit property under the Hindu Succession Act rather than through customary laws, was contrary to the clear mandate of Section 2(2) of the HSA.
As per Section 2(2) of the Act: “Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the members of any Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of clause (25) of Article 366 of the Constitution unless the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, otherwise directs.”
The case arose from a second appeal decided by the Himachal Pradesh High Court, which had observed that applying the Hindu Succession Act to tribal daughters would help prevent “social injustice and exploitation.”
However, the Supreme Court noted that this sweeping direction, made in paragraph 63 of the High Court’s judgment, was beyond the scope of the issues raised in the case and could not have been issued.
Relying on its earlier decision in Tirith Kumar & Ors. v. Daduram & Ors. (2024), the Bench reiterated that members of Scheduled Tribes are expressly excluded from the ambit of the Hindu Succession Act unless specifically notified by the Central Government.
"In view of the provisions of Section 2 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 no such directions extracted supra, could have been issued by the High Court, more so in a case where the issue was neither directly nor substantially involved in the intra-party appeal, arising out of the judgment and decree passed in a civil proceeding. Further, the directions issued by the High Court were not emanating from any one of the issues framed by the Court or pleas raised/agitated by the parties," the court observed.
Comments (0)
Leave a Comment