Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently Justices Sanjay Karol and Joymalya Bagchi of the Supreme Court observed that "exclusion of females from inheritance is unreasonable and discriminatory" while allowing women in a tribal family equal rights as men in a dispute relating to succession. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Ram Charan & Ors. v. Sukhram & Ors. (2025). 

What was the Background of Ram Charan & Ors. v. Sukhram & Ors. (2025) Case? 

• The appellants were the legal heirs of a Scheduled Tribe woman named Dhaiya, who sought a share in the property of her maternal grandfather. 
• The male heirs from the family opposed the claim, asserting that under tribal customs, women were excluded from inheritance. 
• The case involved ancestral property of a tribal family where female heirs were being denied their rightful share. 
• The trial court, first appellate court, and High Court had all rejected the appellants' claim, stating that the appellants failed to prove a custom permitting female inheritance. 
• The courts below held that since the appellants could not establish a positive custom allowing female inheritance, the tribal woman was not entitled to a share. 
• The male heirs contended that tribal customs excluded women from succession rights, though they could not prove any such prohibitive custom. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Joymalya Bagchi observed that "There appears to be no rational nexus or reasonable classification for only males to be granted succession over the property of their forebears and not women." 
• The Supreme Court held that "customs too, like the law, cannot remain stuck in time and others cannot be allowed to take refuge in customs or hide behind them to deprive others of their right." 
• The Court noted that though the Hindu Succession Act is not applicable to Scheduled Tribes, it doesn't mean that tribal women are automatically excluded from inheritance. 
• The Court emphasized that it needs to be seen whether there exists any prevailing custom restricting the female tribal right to share in the ancestral property. 
• The Supreme Court found that gender-based denial of inheritance rights violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI), which guarantees equality before the law. 
• The Court held that in the absence of any specific tribal custom or codified law prohibiting women's rights, courts must apply "justice, equity, and good conscience." 

What was the Court's Reasoning on Burden of Proof? 

• The Court observed that the courts below erred in requiring the appellants to prove a custom permitting inheritance by women. 
• Instead, the opposing party should prove a bar to such inheritance rather than requiring positive proof of permissive custom. 
• The Court noted that "no such custom of female succession could be established by the appellant-plaintiffs, but nonetheless it is also equally true that a custom to the contrary also could not be shown in the slightest, much less proved." 
• In the absence of any prohibitive custom, equality must prevail, and denial of rights solely on gender basis is unconstitutional. 

What is the Constitutional Framework for Gender Equality? 

Article 14 - Right to Equality: 

• Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws to all persons within the territory of India. 
• The provision prohibits arbitrary discrimination and ensures that similar cases are treated similarly. 
• Gender-based denial of inheritance rights constitutes a violation of Article 14 as there is no rational basis for such discrimination. 
• The Court held that there is no rationale in allowing inheritance only to the male heirs when no prohibitive custom exists. 

Article 15 - Prohibition of Discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth: 

• Article 15(1) states that the State shall not discriminate against any person on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. 
• The Court observed that denying succession to female tribal members in the absence of prohibitory custom violates Article 15. 
• Articles 38 and 46 point to the collective ethos of the Constitution in ensuring that there is no discrimination against women. 
• The constitutional framework emphasizes gender equality and prohibits sex-based discrimination in all spheres including property rights.