Nawang and Another v. Bahadur and Others, 2025

• The case originated from a 2015 judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, which, while deciding a second appeal, issued a general direction stating that “daughters in the State's tribal areas should inherit property in accordance with the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, rather than customary tribal laws,” to prevent social injustice and exploitation.

• The High Court’s direction (para 63) was not part of the issues framed, nor was it argued by any party to the litigation.

• The appellants, belonging to a Scheduled Tribe community, challenged this direction before the Supreme Court, contending that:

  • The Hindu Succession Act does not apply to members of Scheduled Tribes as per Section 2(2).

  • The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing directions on matters that were neither pleaded nor in issue.

• The case thus raised a fundamental question — whether courts can apply HSA provisions to Scheduled Tribes, overriding customary tribal law, in the absence of a Central Government notification extending the Act.

1. Whether the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, applies to members of Scheduled Tribes?

2. Whether the High Court could issue general directions applying HSA to tribal communities when the issue was not directly involved in the case?

3. Whether such directions could override customary laws governing succession among Scheduled Tribes?

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned direction of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, holding that:

• The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, does not apply to members of Scheduled Tribes, as explicitly provided under Section 2(2) of the Act.

• The High Court’s general direction applying the Act to tribal women was beyond the scope of the issues framed in the case and therefore unsustainable in law.

• “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.”

• The Bench emphasized that Section 2(2) is unambiguous: unless the Central Government issues a notification in the Official Gazette, the HSA cannot be applied to any member of a Scheduled Tribe.

• Therefore, succession among Scheduled Tribes continues to be governed by their respective customary laws, unless and until the Government legislatively intervenes.

• The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s direction was issued suo motu, without being part of the pleadings or issues, thereby exceeding its jurisdiction.

• Such sweeping judicial pronouncements, the Bench cautioned, could disturb the settled legal framework and customary rights of tribal communities.

• The apex court reiterated that judicial activism cannot override statutory exclusion.

• The Court relied on its earlier judgment in Tirith Kumar & Ors. v. Daduram & Ors. (2024), which reaffirmed that the HSA is inapplicable to Scheduled Tribes unless expressly extended by the Central Government.

• It also cited Kamla Neti v. LAO (2023), where the Court had urged Parliament to consider amending the Act to extend equal inheritance rights to tribal women.

• However, until such legislative amendment, courts must respect the statutory exclusion under Section 2(2).

• This judgment reinforces a long-standing legal position that tribal communities in India are governed by their own customary laws regarding property and inheritance, not by the Hindu Succession Act, unless specifically notified by the Central Government.
  
  
• While the High Court’s intention to promote gender equality and prevent exploitation was socially progressive, the Supreme Court emphasized judicial restraint, reminding that courts cannot legislate where the statute explicitly excludes a class of persons.
  
  
• The Bench’s reliance on Tirith Kumar (2024) and Kamla Neti (2023) highlights a consistent judicial approach and Recognition of the exclusionary scope of Section 2(2); and A legislative appeal to the Parliament to ensure gender-just succession rights among Scheduled Tribes.
  
  
• Thus, while reaffirming statutory interpretation, the judgment leaves open a policy window for the legislature to extend the HSA to Scheduled Tribes through future reform.