Context:

• Over a month after the International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples (August 9), the issue of indigenous rights remains pressing—especially following the Supreme Court’s July 17, 2025 ruling in Ram Charan & Ors. vs Sukhram & Ors.
• This judgement held that excluding daughters from ancestral property violates the fundamental right to equality.
• Viewed through a gender-equality lens, this underscores deep injustice: most tribal women lack statutory inheritance rights (except some matrilineal communities in the Northeast).
• The moment calls for legal reform to secure tribal women’s equal property rights.
• In this context, this article highlights the urgent need to address gender inequality in tribal property rights, examining recent court rulings, customary laws, and the call for a dedicated Tribal Succession Act.

Plea for Equal Share in Tribal Property Rights

• In Ram Charan & Ors. vs Sukhram & Ors., the appellant-plaintiffs, legal heirs of Dhaiya, a Scheduled Tribe woman from Sarguja, Chhattisgarh, sought partition of property belonging to their maternal grandfather, Bhajju Gond.
• Dhaiya, one of six children (five sons and a daughter), was denied her share, as tribal custom excluded women from ancestral property.
• The Trial Court and First Appellate Court dismissed the plea, also rejecting arguments that Hindu traditions and the Hindu Succession Act should apply, citing lack of evidence.
• However, the Chhattisgarh High Court granted Dhaiya’s heirs an equal share, ruling that customs denying women property rights perpetuate gender discrimination.
• The Court emphasized that such discrimination must be weeded out by law.
• This marked a departure from the 1996 Madhu Kishwar vs State of Bihar case, where the Supreme Court, while recognising gender disparity in tribal inheritance customs, declined to strike them down, fearing legal chaos.

Customary Laws and Tribal Women’s Land Rights

• In Scheduled Five Area States like Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, and Odisha, tribal communities follow customary laws in matters of marriage, succession, and adoption.
• Despite women contributing more to farm work, these customs deny them inheritance rights in ancestral property.
• Data from the Agriculture Census 2015-16 shows only 16.7% of Scheduled Tribe women own land, compared to 83.3% of men.
• Arguments against granting women rights often cite land as communitarian property or fears of alienation if women marry non-tribal men.
• However, money from land sales rarely benefits the gram sabha, undermining this reasoning.
• Courts stress that customs must meet tests of antiquity, certainty, continuity, reasonableness, and alignment with public policy to be valid.
• In 2022, the Jharkhand High Court upheld inheritance rights for Oraon women in Prabha Minz vs Martha Ekka, ruling that the community failed to prove a continuous custom of excluding daughters from property rights.

Need for a Separate Tribal Succession Act

• The Supreme Court, in Kamala Neti (Dead) Thr. Lrs. vs Special Land Acquisition Officer (December 2022), took a progressive step toward gender parity in tribal women’s property rights.
• Since Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 2005 excludes tribal communities, a dedicated Tribal Succession Act could address this gap.
• Codifying tribal succession laws, similar to those for Hindus and Christians, would ensure clarity, reduce gender discrimination, and provide statutory inheritance rights for tribal women, strengthening equality and justice.

Conclusion

• Ensuring equal property rights for tribal women requires codifying succession laws, reforming discriminatory customs, and embracing legal measures that uphold justice, equality, and inclusive development.