Justice, Equity & Gender Equality: The Supreme Court’s Recognition of Equal Inheritance Rights for Tribal Women
A Comprehensive Commentary on Ram Charan & Ors. v. Sukhram & Ors., 2025 INSC 865

1. Introduction

Ram Charan & Ors. v. Sukhram & Ors. is a landmark judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India on 17 July 2025. The dispute arose from a suit for partition filed by the children of Dhaiya, a woman belonging to the Gond Scheduled Tribe, who claimed an equal share in the ancestral property of their maternal grandfather, Bhajju alias Bhanjan Gond. The trial court, the first appellate court, and subsequently the Chhattisgarh High Court had all dismissed the claim, primarily on the footing that neither Hindu succession laws applied to Scheduled Tribes nor was any supporting custom proved.

The Supreme Court reversed these findings and, invoking the principles of justice, equity and good conscience along with the equality mandate of Article 14, held that in the absence of any exclusionary custom, a tribal woman (or her heirs) is entitled to parity in inheritance with her male siblings. The decision therefore establishes a new precedent: when no personal law or custom governs succession among Scheduled Tribes, courts must default to equal inheritance for women, anchored in constitutional equality and the equitable jurisdiction preserved by Section 6 of the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875 (despite its repeal).

2. Summary of the Judgment

• Issue: Whether a female member of a Scheduled Tribe, or her legal heirs, has an equal right in ancestral property in the absence of a proved custom to the contrary.
• Findings:
  • Hindu Succession Act, 1956 expressly excludes Scheduled Tribes (Section 2(2)); hence neither the traditional “coparcenary” framework nor the 2005 amendment directly applies.
  • No concrete evidence of a community custom either conferring or denying inheritance to daughters was adduced by any party.
  • The void is therefore filled by Section 6 of the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875, which commands courts to act according to justice, equity and good conscience.
  • The 1875 statute, though repealed in 2018, survives for accrued rights via the Saving Clause in Repealing Act 4 of 2018.
  • Equality under Article 14 and the non-discrimination mandate of Article 15 forbid gender-based exclusion from succession when no law supports such exclusion.
• Decision: The Supreme Court set aside the concurrent findings below, declared the heirs of Dhaiya entitled to an equal share with the male lineage, and allowed the appeal.

3. Analytical Discussion

3.1 Precedents Cited and Distinguished

1. Salekh Chand v. Satya Gupta (2008) 13 SCC 119 & Ratanlal v. Sundarabai Govardhandas Samsuka (2018) 11 SCC 119
   — Relied on by the High Court to support the necessity of proving custom. The Supreme Court agreed on proof standards but clarified that absence of proof does not automatically deny women’s rights; instead, justice and equality principles step in.
2. Aliyathammuda Beethathebiyyappura Pookoya v. Pattakal Cheriyakoya (2019) 16 SCC 1
   — Reaffirmed that customs must be established by clear evidence. The present Court used the same yardstick but noted that neither side met it.
3. Niemla Textile Finishing Mills Ltd. v. Second Punjab Tribunal 1957 SCR 335
   — Cited to demonstrate continued relevance of justice, equity and good conscience when statutory law is silent.
4. M. Siddiq v. Suresh Das (Ram Janmabhoomi) (2020) 1 SCC 1
   — Extensively quoted for the doctrinal exposition on how equity supplements gaps in positive law.
5. Tirith Kumar v. Daduram 2024 SCC OnLine SC 38
   — A recent precedent from Chhattisgarh where the Court upheld inheritance rights of female heirs on identical principles.
6. Equality line of cases: Maneka Gandhi (1978) 1 SCC 248; Air India v. Nergesh Meerza (1981) 4 SCC 335; Shayara Bano (2017) 9 SCC 1 — relied upon to reinforce the constitutional imperative against arbitrary gender discrimination.

3.2 Legal Reasoning of the Court

1. Exclusion of Hindu Succession Act: By virtue of Section 2(2), Scheduled Tribes are outside its ambit unless specifically notified by the Central Government.
2. Inconclusive Customary Evidence: Both plaintiffs and defendants failed to lead satisfactory proof of a prevailing custom either permitting or prohibiting female succession.
3. Application of Section 6, Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875: This colonial-era provision directs courts to decide according to justice, equity and good conscience when no other law applies. Though repealed in 2018, the Saving Clause preserved accrued rights and procedural reliance.
4. Justice, Equity & Good Conscience: The Court endorsed equity as a dynamic tool, citing Ram Janmabhoomi and Niemla Textile, to fill legislative vacuums. Doing equity meant ensuring daughters are not disinherited merely because custom is silent.
5. Constitutional Equality: Unequal inheritance solely on gender grounds violates Article 14; there is no rational nexus for exclusion. Article 15(1) prohibits sex-based discrimination. Directive principles (Articles 38 & 46) further buttress gender justice.
6. Burdens of Proof Re-allocated: The Court criticised the “patriarchal predisposition” of assuming exclusion and forcing women to prove inclusion. In absence of proof either way, equality must prevail.

3.3 Impact of the Decision

• Women’s Property Rights in Tribal Communities: Establishes that unless an explicit, valid custom excluding women is proved, tribal women inherit equally. This shifts practical burdens and empowers female claimants.
• Revives Equitable Jurisdiction: Reinforces continuing vitality of Section 6 equivalents (even of repealed Acts) through saving clauses, encouraging lower courts to resort to equitable doctrines.
• Guidance on Repealed Statutes: Clarifies that repeal with saving clauses does not extinguish accrued substantive rights — an important interpretative tool for all repealed colonial legislations.
• Constitutionalisation of Personal Law Gaps: Confirms that constitutional equality can directly rectify gender-biased outcomes where personal law is silent, signalling a jurisprudential trend toward harmonising customary/personal laws with fundamental rights.
• Legislative Impetus: May stimulate Parliament to enact a comprehensive succession framework for Scheduled Tribes that balances cultural autonomy with gender justice.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Custom

A practice continuously and uniformly observed by a community, accepted as legally binding. It must be ancient, certain, and reasonable, and has to be proved by evidence.

Justice, Equity and Good Conscience

A common-law concept empowering courts to deliver fair outcomes when no statutory or customary rule applies. Essentially, it is jurisprudence guided by fairness and reason.

Saving Clause

A legislative provision stating that repeal of an Act does not affect rights or liabilities that accrued while the Act was in force.

Article 14

Guarantees “equality before the law” and “equal protection of the laws”— prohibiting arbitrary or discriminatory state action.

Burden of Proof Regarding Custom

The party asserting a custom bears the burden to prove its existence, continuity, and validity.

5. Conclusion

Ram Charan v. Sukhram decisively advances gender equality in the sphere of tribal succession. By shifting the paradigm from presumed exclusion to guaranteed equality absent contrary proof, the Supreme Court harmonises customary autonomy with constitutional morality. It also revives the equitable jurisdiction embedded in Section 6 of the 1875 Act, demonstrating that repealed colonial statutes can still inform contemporary justice through saving clauses. The judgment’s enduring message is clear: when neither statutory law nor custom speaks, the Constitution does—and it speaks in the language of equality.