Supreme Court Adjourns Hearing on Succession Rights of Scheduled Tribe Women — Calls for Re-examination of Inheritance Laws.

  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved a challenge to the provisions of the Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, which restricted succession to property to male descendants of Scheduled Tribes. The petitioners, women from the 'Ho' and 'Oraon' tribes, argued that this restriction was discriminatory and violated their constitutional rights to equality. The court noted that while the law could regulate succession to maintain cohesiveness within Scheduled Tribes, outright exclusion of women from inheritance was not appropriate. The State of Bihar had previously set up a committee that concluded that customs among Scheduled Tribes excluded female heirs from succession, warning of potential unrest if changes were made. The court found that Scheduled Tribe individuals are entitled to constitutional protections and directed the State to reconsider the inheritance laws, ensuring that property does not leave the family while allowing for female inheritance. The hearing was adjourned for three months for the State to report back on its findings and proposed amendments.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Equality Clause - Discriminatory Provisions - Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, Sections 7, 8 - The Act's provisions confining succession to the male line were challenged as discriminatory against women. The court held that exclusion from inheritance is inappropriate and directed the State of Bihar to re-examine the feasibility of permitting inheritance while regulating it to maintain property within families (Paras 480-481).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the provisions of the Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, which confine succession to property to the male line, are discriminatory against women and violate the equality clause in the Constitution.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court adjourned the hearing for three months, directing the State of Bihar to reconsider the provisions of the Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act and report back on the feasibility of allowing female heirs to inherit property.

Law Points

  • Succession rights
  • Scheduled Tribes
  • gender discrimination
  • constitutional guarantees
  • inheritance laws
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

1991 LawText (SC) (10) 8

Writ Petition No. 5723 of 1982 & 219 of 1986

1991-10-11

Misra, Rangnath (CJ), Kuldip Singh (J)

1991 SCR Supl. (1) 477, 1992 SCC (1) 102, JT 1991 (4) 119, 1991 SCALE (2) 794

Mrs Pinky Anand, D.N. Goburdhan, B.B. Singh, Pramod Swarup, J.P. Verghese, LJ. Vadakare, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal (N.P.)

Madhu Kishwar and Ors.

State of Bihar

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Challenge to the provisions of the Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act regarding succession rights.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought a declaration that the provisions confining succession to the male line were unconstitutional.

Filing Reason

The provisions were claimed to be discriminatory against women, violating the equality clause of the Constitution.

Previous Decisions

The Patna High Court had previously ruled on similar issues but did not provide full support for the petitioners' arguments.

Issues

Whether the provisions of the Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act are discriminatory against women. Whether the State should amend the Act to allow female heirs to inherit property.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that the Act's provisions violate constitutional guarantees of equality. Respondents contended that customs among Scheduled Tribes justified the exclusion of female heirs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court emphasized that while laws can regulate succession to maintain community cohesiveness, outright exclusion of women from inheritance is not justified under constitutional guarantees.

Judgment Excerpts

Scheduled Tribe people are as much citizens as others and they are entitled to the benefit of guarantees of the Constitution. Exclusion from inheritance would not be appropriate.

Procedural History

The case involved two writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the provisions of the Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908.

Acts & Sections

  • Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908: 7, 8
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Disposes Public Interest Litigations Challenging Powai Lake Cycling Track Construction as Violative of MRTP Act and DCR. Alleged Reclamation and Construction Over Wetland, Water Body, and Crocodile Habitat Examined Under Maharashtra...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Review Petition on Seniority Rules in Income-Tax Service — No Substance Found in Request.