New Delhi: The Supreme Court has ruled that a Chhattisgarh woman from a Scheduled Tribe and her legal heirs are entitled to a share of her ancestral property, observing that denying her inheritance in the absence of any contrary legal provision would only deepen gender inequality.
A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Joymalya Bagchi delivered the verdict on Thursday (July 17) while hearing an appeal filed by the heirs of a woman named Dhaiya. She had been denied an equal share of her father’s property by lower courts, including the trial court, an appellate court, and the Chhattisgarh High Court, on the grounds that no custom supporting her claim had been proven.
While it was true that Dhaiya’s heirs could not prove the existence of a custom granting her inheritance rights, the Supreme Court noted that the opposing parties also failed to establish any custom that explicitly denied her such rights. In such a situation, where customary law provides no clear guidance, the court held that the matter must be governed by the "principle of justice, equity and good conscience" under the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875, which was still in force at the time of her father's death.
“Customs too, like the law, cannot remain stuck in time,” the court observed, adding that individuals cannot invoke vague or outdated customs to deprive others of their legal rights.
The bench held that denying a female heir property rights—unless expressly barred by law—not only sustains but worsens gender discrimination, which the law must seek to eliminate. “Unless otherwise prescribed in law, denying the female heir a right in the property only exacerbates gender division and discrimination, which the law should ensure to weed out,” the court said.
It further ruled that excluding Dhaiya from inheritance would violate Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law. This would amount to discrimination against her in comparison to her five brothers, and similarly, her heirs would be unfairly deprived in comparison to their cousins.
“We are of the firm view that in keeping with the principles of justice, equity and good conscience, read along with the overarching effect of Article 14 of the Constitution, the appellant-plaintiffs, being Dhaiya’s legal heirs, are entitled to their equal share in the property,” the court concluded, overturning nearly 17 years of contrary rulings by lower courts.