The Gendered Landscape of Inheritance Law in India
Inheritance law in India has long been shaped by patriarchal traditions, religious customs, and legal frameworks that privileged the male lineage. Women, especially daughters and widows, have historically been excluded from inheriting family property, especially ancestral or the joint family property. These exclusions were rooted not only in social practices but also in legal systems that codified male privilege and perpetuated gender discrimination further. Although The Indian Constitution Act, 1950 enshrines the right to equality under Article 14 and prohibits gender-based discrimination under Article 15, personal laws and customary practices have often been allowed to operate outside this constitutional framework. This dis-connect between constitutional values and personal or customary laws has led to decades of litigation and legal reform. A critical development in this journey is the recent Supreme Court judgment in Ram Charan & Ors. v. Sukhram & Ors. (2025), which significantly advances the conversation around property rights for female heirs, particularly tribal women, by applying principles of equity, justice, and constitutional morality.
The Legal and Constitutional Trajectory Towards Equality
The Ram Charan Judgment : Background and Trial History
The case of Ram Charan involved a dispute over ancestral property within the Gond Scheduled Tribe. The appellants were the children of a woman named ‘Dhaiya’, who had five brothers. After her death, her children claimed a share in their maternal grandfather’s property. The respondents, who were the male heirs of Dhaiya’s brothers, contested this claim, arguing that because the family belonged to a Scheduled Tribe, the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA), did not apply to them under Section 2(2) of the Act which says that “Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), 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”. They further argued that customary law, which allegedly excluded women from inheritance, governed succession within their community. Both the trial court and the High Court upheld this view, denying inheritance to Dhaiya’s children on the basis that there was neither statutory recognition of female succession rights in tribal communities nor any proven customary practice granting such rights.
2. The Supreme Court Verdict : A Constitutional Breakthrough
The Supreme Court, however, took a radically different view. In a powerful affirmation of constitutional principles, the Court held that in the absence of a proven, codified, and consistent custom that excludes women from inheritance, the claim of the female heir’s children must be upheld. The judgment emphasized that vague references to tradition cannot override fundamental rights and that customary law cannot be used to perpetuate gender discrimination without passing constitutional scrutiny. The Court observed that denying inheritance solely on the ground of gender, especially when no valid custom is shown to justify such exclusion, is arbitrary and unconstitutional. It applied the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience to fill the legislative void created by Section 2(2) of the HSA and upheld the right of Dhaiya’s children to inherit ancestral property.
3. Ram Charan as a Precedent : Key Legal Implications
This ruling is groundbreaking for several reasons. Firstly, it recognizes that tribal identity cannot be used as a shield to deny gender equality. While Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act does exclude Scheduled Tribes from its scope, this exclusion was originally intended to respect cultural autonomy and not to sanction patriarchal oppression. Over time, however, this legal vacuum has disproportionately harmed tribal women, many of whom remain bound by oral traditions and customary rules that have never been formally codified or subjected to judicial review. The Supreme Court’s verdict in Ram Charan breaks this silence by affirming that constitutional rights are not optional or conditional. In the absence of a codified or consistent custom that justifies unequal treatment, the default must be equality, not exclusion.
Secondly, the Court’s reasoning marks a definitive turn toward the application of constitutional morality in matters traditionally governed by personal or customary law. This approach is consistent with earlier decisions like Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017), where the Court invalidated ‘triple talaq’ as being unconstitutional despite it being a long-standing religious practice. In Ram Charan, the Court made it quite clear that customs cannot be invoked selectively to uphold injustice. If in any case a custom is discriminatory, unproven, or inconsistent with constitutional principles, it cannot stand.
Legal commentators have rightly hailed the judgment of Ram Charan as a landmark. The Bar & Bench article “Succession Rights of Tribal Women: Time for Gender Equality” highlights how such rulings can serve as a springboard for reforming tribal succession laws across India. The blog emphasizes that while cultural diversity must be respected, it should not come at the cost of fundamental human rights. As many scholars have pointed out, the mere invocation of “custom” cannot justify the continued marginalization of women, particularly in areas like property and inheritance that directly affect their autonomy, security, and dignity.
4. The Evolution of Women’s Inheritance Rights
The Ram Charan judgment also builds upon a broader legal evolution that began decades ago but has gained momentum in the last twenty years. Before the Hindu Succession Act of 1956, Hindu women had extremely limited inheritance rights in the country. Daughters had no claim to coparcenary property, and widows could only enjoy a life interest under the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937. The 1956 Act marked a formal attempt to codify and modernize Hindu succession law but retained key patriarchal features, most notably in Section 6, which restricted coparcenary rights to male descendants. Daughters could inherit separate property of the father if he died intestate but were not part of the joint family property system. The justification often provided was that daughters, upon marriage, became part of another family, thereby forfeiting rights in their natal home.
This limited approach was then finally challenged by The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, which declared that daughters, like sons, are coparceners by birth. They would have the same rights and liabilities in joint family property, including the right to demand partition. However, the implementation of this reform led to judicial confusion. In Prakash v. Phulavati (2016), the Supreme Court held that both the daughter and the father must be alive on the date the amendment came into effect which was September 9, 2005 for the daughter to claim coparcenary rights. This restrictive interpretation was partially contradicted in Danamma @ Suman Surpur v. Amar (2018), where the Court allowed a daughter’s claim even though the father had died in 2001. These contradictory rulings led to considerable legal uncertainty.
The confusion was finally laid to rest by the Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020), a landmark judgment that affirmed that daughters are coparceners by birth, irrespective of whether the father was alive on the date of the 2005 amendment. The Court overruled Phulavati, emphasized the retrospective application of the law in spirit, and stated unequivocally that gender equality must be the touchstone for interpreting inheritance rights. The Vineeta Sharma decision aligned personal law with constitutional mandates and ensured that daughters could no longer be excluded on arbitrary grounds from their inheritance rights.
5. Ram Charan’s Distinct Contribution: Addressing Tribal Women’s Exclusion
The Ram Charan judgment takes this line of progressive reasoning further by addressing the exclusion of tribal women, who remain beyond the reach of the Hindu Succession Act due to Section 2(2). In doing so, it fills a critical gap that even the 2005 Amendment did not address. The tribal women often suffer a “double exclusion”, first from patriarchal customs and second from the statutory protection extended to other women. Ram Charan challenges this dual marginalization and sets a precedent for courts to intervene where customary law becomes a cloak for inequality.
However, even with these progressive legal reforms and judgements, the gap between law and practice remains vast. A 2024 study published in World Development titled “Do Courts Grant Women Their Inheritance Shares?” analyzed over 500 High Court judgments and found that although women win around 77% of inheritance cases, only 52% are awarded actual shares. This disparity highlights the enduring cultural resistance to women’s property rights, which legal victories alone cannot overcome. Many women, especially in rural and tribal areas, are still discouraged from asserting their rights due to familial pressure, lack of legal literacy, and fear of social ostracization.
Towards a More Equitable Future
In this context, the Ram Charan judgement is not just a legal milestone but also a call to action. It urges the judiciary to adopt a rights-based approach to custom and tradition and encourages the lawmakers to revisit outdated legal provisions like Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act. It also underscores the need for awareness campaigns, legal aid mechanisms, and community-level interventions to ensure that the rights won in courtrooms translate into real-life change. As the Contemporary Law Forum noted in its commentary, inheritance must be viewed not just as a matter of statutory interpretation but as a crucial tool for achieving social justice.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ram Charan & Ors. v. Sukhram & Ors. represents a transformative moment in India’s legal history. It bridges the gap between statutory exclusion and constitutional inclusion, bringing tribal women into the fold of gender-just inheritance law. Alongside decisions like Vineeta Sharma, it forms part of a broader judicial philosophy that prioritizes equality, dignity, and substantive justice. But the work is far from over. For these judgments to have lasting impact, they must be supported by legislative reform, institutional accountability, and a cultural shift in how we view women’s place in the family and the economy. Inheritance, after all, is not just about property, it is about power, autonomy, and the right to live with dignity.
…And in that journey, Ram Charan lights the way.
This post is written by Palak Chhabra, a student of Jindal Global Law School.
