The Supreme Court has once again underscored a long-settled principle — the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, does not extend to members of Scheduled Tribes unless explicitly directed by the Central Government.
A Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra struck down a Himachal Pradesh High Court directive that had extended inheritance rights under the Hindu Succession Act to daughters belonging to tribal areas. The High Court had reasoned that such an interpretation would promote “social justice and equality,” but the apex court found that conclusion legally untenable.
Citing Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, the Court reminded that Parliament had clearly carved out an exception:
“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 stemmed from a 2015 Himachal Pradesh High Court ruling, where sweeping directions were issued without the matter being part of the original issues before the bench. The Supreme Court observed that such judicial overreach violated the settled boundaries of adjudication.
Reinforcing its earlier judgment in Tirith Kumar & Others v. Daduram & Others (2024), the Court reaffirmed that Scheduled Tribe members remain outside the Act’s ambit. It further emphasized that the High Court’s directive “could not have been issued in a case where the issue was neither directly nor substantially involved,” cautioning against courts stepping beyond the contours of the dispute at hand.
The Bench recalled that in both Tirith Kumar and Kamla Neti v. LAO (2023), the Supreme Court had already urged the Union Government to consider amending the law to bring Scheduled Tribes within its scope — a call that remains unanswered.
