Kamla Neti (Dead) Through Legal Representatives(Appellant) vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Ors.

Author: Aadhya Anand, Symbiosis Law School, Pune

In modern times, land rights constitute a crucial part of one’s social identity. It embodies the unrestricted right of individuals to acquire, possess, use, and dispose of their property, provided such use does not violate the rights of others. India lacks a uniform civil code- this mean that people from different faiths are subject to different inheritance laws. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the HSA)  is one of the legislations that gives statutory recognition to such land rights and governs the same. 

While Hindu women’s legal right to inherited property has been restricted from the earliest times in Indian CultureThe 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, though delayed,  was a progressive step toward gender equality, granting women equal rights to acquire and inherit property. However, this objective remains only partially fulfilled, as women belonging to Scheduled Tribes (ST) continue to be excluded under Section 2(2) of the Act.

 This exclusion not only defeats the legislative intent to promote equality but also stands in violation of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. Land rights among tribal communities are also historically characterized by a lack of gender parity. The judgment in Kamla Neti v. Land Acquisition Officer is a commendable attempt to address this legislative gap and pave the way for much-needed reform.

Satyananda Negi, a member of the Schedule Tribe in Orissa, held absolute ownership over the land located at Khas No. 81, in Mouza Kopsingha, Orissa (Schedule Property). The said disputed property devolved onto Negi’s two sons- Chakradhar and Gajadhar, on his death. Subsequently, Chakradhar had four sons and one daughter (Appellant). The four sons inherited equal portions of their father’s portion of the disputed property following the latter’s death in 1948. Over 60 years later, when the land was acquired by the Orissa government for an ultra-mega power project in Sundargarh district, Chakradhar’s daughter, who is the appellant in the present case before the SC, claimed 1/5th share in the Rs. 5,97,35,754/- compensation amount (made under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894) by virtue of being the daughter of Chakradhar as well as the lineal descendant of the original owner of the suit property. An application before the Reference court was rejected mainly on the ground that the appellant and her community were not entitled to benefit from the 2005 amendment of the HSA due to the exclusion under Section 2(2). This decision was also upheld by the High Court.

Issues

The central legal issues that arose in the present case before the SC  are as follows,

1. Whether members of the Schedules Tribe (ST) community come within the purview of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956?

2. If yes, will a female member of the ST community be entitled to her respective share in the compensation of the land acquired on a survivorship basis, especially after the 2005 amendment?

Legal Implications

While safeguarding tribal customary practices is important, there remains debate over whether such customs should override constitutional provisions. As most of these practices are unwritten, communities must prove their consistent and widespread observance. Customs must be ancient and invariable, established by a clear and unambiguous evidence for the Courts to be assured of their existence. The Himachal Pradesh High Court  has ruled that inheritance rights should be governed by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, rather than local customs that often reflect gender bias. The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 was specifically enacted to grant women equal rights to ancestral property. Therefore, the provisions of the HSA, 1956, should prevail over discriminatory customary norms. 

This differential treatment, where non-tribal women are given customary rights to property when tribal women are excluded from the same, raises questions regarding the constitutional validity of  Section 2(2). The exclusionary provision is question amounts to legal apartheid in a broader context.  It violates  Article 14 due to its arbitrary differential treatment and undermines Article 15(3), which empowers the State to advance—rather than deny—protections for women. Further, there is no independent uniform code for inheritance among STs, which results in inconsistency, arbitrariness and legal uncertainty. 

Social Implications

Patriarchy is deep-rooted in the Indian Society, where religious and customary texts often place men above women in the matters of marriage, succession and inheritance. Women in Scheduled Tribe communities face a double disadvantage—marginalized as tribals and further discriminated against for their gender. With limited access to mainstream education and economic opportunities, their path to empowerment is already constrained. Most tribal societies, while not always explicitly discriminatory, are deeply patriarchal in practice. In this context, denying women inheritance rights not only deepens their social exclusion but also deprives them of dignity, independence, and the chance to break free from systemic inequality.

Ethical Implications

The tussle between cultural preservation and universal human rights is a new-age ethical dilemma. Turning a blind eye to discriminatory practices, especially when state-made advancements for other communities exist, amounts to a state-enabled injustice. While the practice of non-interference with tribal customary laws in the interest of preservation is important, such considerations must be weighed against a democratic and citizen-centric state’s duty to uphold dignity and equality for all citizens. In the present context, denying a tribal woman inheritance rights afforded to her non-tribal counterparts would perpetuate historical injustice that has been meted out to these backward communities for centuries.

Hindu personal laws have seen quite a few commendable advancements in the recent decades, aimed at undoing traditional patriarchal and misogynistic practices. Notably, the 2005 amendment in the HSA granted women coparcenary rights in Hindu undivided property. On par with sons, Hindu daughters could now acquire coparcenary rights by birth, including the right to inherit ancestral property, demand partition and act as the Karta of the family. The retrospective applicability of this amendment was reinforced by the SC in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma. While Hindu laws apply to the Sikhs, Buddhists and Jews, only tribes which have assimilated into Hinduism come under its legislative purview. This is highly insufficient as a meagre 5% of India’s 50 Lakh plus ST community religiously identify themselves as followers of Hinduism. 

By establishing the dual test of renouncing customary laws and embracing Hinduism for availing the benefits of the HAS, the concept of “Hinduisation” was established in Bukati Bai v. Sukhbati. It was finally in the Kamala Neti case, that the court emphasised the need for a legislative amendment in the Indian succession laws to incorporate tribals within their respective framework.

While the Respondent’s arguments were firmly rooted in the legislative provision under Section 2(2) which explicitly excludes tribal women from the purview of the HSA (and the resulting entitlement to compensation under Section 8), the Appellant argued that denying a tribal woman her succession rights amounts to a violation of the  Right to Life under Article 21. Further, this discrimination and resulting unequal treatment between tribal women and women under the HAS is arbitrary and thus violative of Article 14. The 1996 decision in Madhu Kishwar and Others v State of Bihar and Others  is the only SC  judgment by a three-judge bench to explicitly address gender inequality in property inheritance customs among India’s tribes. The judgment struck a balance between customary laws and gender equality considerations and was relied upon by the Appellants.

Unfortunately, owing to the explicit exclusion under Section 2(2), the SC had to dismiss the petition and thus rule in favour of the Respondent. The  exclusion under Section 2(2) is subject to an exemption from such exclusion by the Central Government via a notification in the official gazette. Thus, without an amendment or notification by the government, no benefit can be accrued to tribal women. The Appellant was undisputedly a member of the ST community and hence subject to exclusion. As held in Labishwar Manjhi vs. Pran Manjhi and Ors., the provisions of HSA would be applicable only if the tribe members follow customary practices of Hinduism.

The apex court considered the appellant’s reliance on the minority opinion of Justice Ramaswami in Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar, where it was opined that the general provisions and principles contained in HSA would apply to ST women, being in consonance with the principles of good conscience, equity, justness and fairness. Thus, ST women can virtually inherit the properties of their parents and husbands by way of intestate succession on a survivorship basis. While the court acknowledged the appellant’s claim on compensation on equitable grounds, equity can only supplement and not supplant the law and hence the reliance on the  minority view in the Madhu Kishwar case was rejected. 

While Article 13 recognizes customary norms, it simultaneously holds that such customs and usage inconsistent with fundamental rights would be void to the extent of inconsistency. While Justice Ramaswami recognized the unique inheritance customs practiced by various tribes, he was hesitant to make a determination regarding their constitutional validity without explicit evidence of such practice by the petitioners. While the majority in Madhu Kishwar avoided amending the act in question and disagreed with Justice Ramaswami’s approach for judicially amending the Act, they delivered their opinion by considering the latter’s in depth analysis on tribal customs.

As held in B. Premanand v. Mohan Koikall, law unequivocally prevails in a conflict between law and equity. The SC refused to allow the Appellant’s claim as the same would amount to amendment, disturbing the fragile system of checks and balances between the judiciary and legislature. Further, as held in State of Jharkhand v. Govind Singh, it is for the legislature to amend the law and not the Court. Accordingly, the Court upheld the decisions of both the Reference Court and the High Court in rejecting the claimed relief.

• Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar: While Justice Ramaswami’s dissenting opinion is commendable in igniting discussion around tribal women’s land rights, reliance on the same cannot be sustained as the majority in the case ruled against the application of HSA to tribal communities. 

• Labishwar Manjhi vs. Pran Manjhi and Ors: This case set a clear precedent that only tribal communities who have embraced Hinduism can be subject to the HSA, thus supporting the respondent’s contentions.

• B. Premanand v. Mohan Koikall: The SC’s inaction in granting relief to the appellant is justified by this Case Law.

• State of Jharkhand v. Govind Singh: Supporting the Respondent’s contentions, this precedent firmly established that there can be no lawful extension of the HSA to tribal communities, until there is a legislative amendment to this effect.

Although the court dismissed the petition, the judgment recorded some strong observations which could potentially pave the way for legislative amendments. As long as Section 2(2) of the HSA stands without amendment, the parties will be subject to the said provision and the exclusion under it. The only solution to such a discrepancy is a legislative amendment removing the exclusion. The SC directed the Central Government to consider the withdrawal of tribal exemption from the HSA as well as the Indian Succession Act, 1925. It also issued directions to the State of Bihar to comprehensively examine the question on the premise of our constitutional ethos and the need voiced to amend the law.

The bench of Justice MR Shah and Justice Krishan Murari observed that "To deny the equal right to the daughter belonging to the tribal even after a period of 70 years of the Constitution of India under which right to equality is guaranteed, it is high time for the Central Government to look into the matter and if required, to amend the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act by which the Hindu Succession Act is not made applicable to the members of the Scheduled Tribe."

In today’s context, protecting tribal customs through non-interference should not be the sole priority. While it is essential that courts and legislators avoid imposing uniform standards that erase the distinct identity of tribal communities, it would be unjust to deny them the progressive benefits extended to other groups. Tribal customs do not explicitly deny land rights to women; rather, they tend to favour men by default. In such cases, applying the Hindu Succession Act and its gender-neutral provisions would not only empower tribal women but also bring much-needed clarity and structure to tribal inheritance laws, which often lack formal documentation and consistency.

The Latin maxim of “Dura Lex, Sed lex” i.e., The law is hard, but it is the law,  was reflected in this case. Where there is a conflict between statutory provisions and equitable considerations, the former must prevail to ensure uniformity and predictability, which are important characteristics of good law.

The two-judge bench in this case struck a commendable balance between respecting the separation of powers and leveraging its authority to urge legislative reform. Faced with a clear statutory exception, the Court had limited scope to grant relief to the appellant through legally sound means. Notably, earlier decisions like Madhu Kishwar only supported equal inheritance rights for tribal women through minority opinions. This case stands out as the first instance where the judiciary delivered a clear and unified call to the legislature to amend the law and address the inequity. 

Background

Why the exclusion?

The tribal communities are empowered to regulate affairs in relation to marriage, succession and inheritance in accordance to their customs, by virtue of Schedules V and VI of the Constitution. Accordingly, the members of Scheduled Tribe are excluded from the application of HSA as well as Indian Succession Act , 1925,  unless the Central Government directs otherwise via a notification in the official gazette. While, undoubtedly, the legislative intent behind such an exclusion was to preserve ancestral customs, it has inadvertently led to reinforcement of patriarchal traditions. The comparatively low literacy levels among tribal populations also hampers their ability to effect equitable and gender-neutral inheritance systems.

While Indian tribes vary vastly in customs, most of them tend to favour the male population in land rights. A married daughter would take land ownership outside the family to her in-laws and hence was thought to contradict proprietorship. Accordingly, the cultivated land was sustained within the family by emphasising inheritance through the male line. For example, a strict male authoritarian form of dominance is found in certain tribes of Arunachal Pradesh, while on the other hand, daughters enjoy inheritance rights in the Lalung tribe (albeit it is subject to the “management” assumed by their husbands). Partial equality, such as women’s rights over private property and money and not immovable property is seen in the Hill Miri tribe. 

Inadequacy in the current law

Across castes and creeds, women have been delegated to a secondary status and subjected to centuries to unequal treatment, discrimination, oppression and violence. The geographical and social isolation that characterizes tribal communities, coupled with their ancestral customs marked with rigid social structures and patriarchal undertones, makes Adivasi women more vulnerable to unequal treatment in land rights and otherwise. Against such a backdrop, excluding tribal women from claiming land rights on survivorship basis would lead to further marginalization and amount to arbitrary discrimination. 

Although legislative amendments are one of the crucial things to remedy the issue in favour of tribal women, it is necessary to look at solutions that transcend the instant case at hand. Concerted efforts need to be undertaken to change the public perception of tribal women and the land rights they must be entitled to. It is only through such initiatives that the  historical injustice done against tribal women can be undone, as well as safeguards can be created so as to ensure that such scenarios do not arise in the future.

Governmental bodies are notoriously known to overlook women’s land rights. The “National Training Policy for Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, 2015”, has failed to mention women’s land rights as a whole, although its objective was to shape capacity building for rural development officials. None of the 130+ workshops and 7 gender sensitization sessions conducted by the National Judicial Academy between 2018 and 2021 addressed the issue of land rights of women. Considering these glaring inadequacies in the sessions which train our country’s judicial officials, the need for education and awareness on the issue becomes paramount.

The consequence of the lack of governmental studies focusing, or even acknowledging, women’s land rights is the utter lack of gender-disaggregated data on the topic, which makes it even more challenging to assess the gravity of the problem. The NITI Ayog does not explicitly provide such data, which further hampers the efforts to bring about women empowerment and equality. Including gender-specific data in the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation’s framework would encourage governments to collect more accurate data, enabling programs to address women’s landlessness in underdeveloped districts. 

In the recent case of Tirith Kumar & Ors. vs. Daduram & Ors.The observation made in the Kamla Neti case was reiterated. The case revolved around ancestral property held by two-branches of a tribal family and whether the daughters of the said family could claim inheritance to the property. The SC upheld the Chhattisgarh High Court’s judgment that reaffirmed that while the provisions of HSA could not apply in the absence of a legislative amendment or notification removing the exclusion, the daughters were however entitled to a share in the inheritance in furtherance of the principles of justice, equity and good conscience ( emerging from the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875). By applying equitable principles, the Court ensured that the daughters were not completely deprived of their rights, establishing a precedent for future cases involving tribal customs and gender equality. 

Reiterating the suggestion made to the Central Government in the Kamla Neti case, Tirth Kumar went one step ahead and granted a rightful share in the property to the tribal daughters in the case, within the boundaries of judicial intervention. Despite two subsequent judicial pronouncements urging the Central Government to address the exclusion of tribal women from the benefits of the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act—owing to the operation of Section 2(2)—no steps have been taken in this regard. The only definitive solution to this persistent injustice lies in legislative intervention.

Legislative amendment

The most direct and effective solution for the issue at hand is a legislative amendment that does away with the exclusion under Section 2(2) and extends the application of the HSA to tribal communities who have undocumented, ambiguous or an absence of inheritance practices as a whole. The benefit of the has must be extended to eligible tribal communities, even if they haven’t renounced their tribal way of life and adopted Hinduism. This would ensure that tribal women receive the same statutory rights to ancestral property as their non-tribal counterparts, aligning the law with Articles 14 and 15(3) of the Constitution.

Central Government Notification 

As an interim measure, the Central Government can issue a notification under the existing framework to extend the HAS (and/or the Indian Succession Act, 1925) to tribal communities, starting with those whose customary laws are undocumented, outdated or overly discriminatory. Such a gradual approach not only prevents community backlash, but also helps develop a more robust framework that can subsequently be incorporated through legislative amendment.

Creation of a uniform framework for Tribal Succession 

To avoid harmonization and assimilation with the Hindu-specific personal laws, a codified and gender-neutral tribal inheritance legislation could be developed in consultation with tribal leaders, women’s rights activists and legal experts. Such a framework must reflect tribal values while upholding constitutional guarantees of equality.

Awareness initiatives and Policy reforms

There is an urgent need to raise awareness among tribal communities to educate them about the importance of gender equality and the need to reform discriminatory practices. Engaging with tribal leaders, community organisations and civil society groups can contribute towards efforts in this regard. Further, policies must be reformed to boost the economic empowerment and access to resources for tribal women, such as land ownership programmes and skill development initiatives. This will ensure that the overall empowerment and education of women in these communities would gradually lead to social development and a shift towards gender parity. 

From Madhu Kishwar, where only the dissenting opinion supported gender-neutral inheritance rights for tribal women, to Kamla Neti, where a unanimous bench urged the Central Government to reconsider the exclusion of Scheduled Tribes from succession laws, and finally to Tirth Kumar, where the Court upheld tribal women’s inheritance rights based on principles of justice, equity, and good conscience—judicial recognition of tribal women's land rights has indeed evolved significantly. While these developments are commendable, a lasting and comprehensive solution lies in legislative intervention. Respecting and preserving tribal customs is important, but it must not come at the cost of endorsing outdated and discriminatory practices that clearly violate constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity.

1.Anuj Goyal, Women Rights in Hindu Succession Act 1956, 6 INT'I J.L. MGMT. & HUMAN. 336 (2023).

2. Deborati Halder & K. Jaishankar, Property Rights of Hindu Women: A Feminist Review of Succession Laws of Ancient, Medieval, and Modern India, 24 J. L. & RELIGION 663 (2008-2009).

3. Hindu Succession Act, 1956, § 2(2), No. 30, Acts of Parliament, 1872. (India).

4. India Const. art. 14.

5. (2022) 10 SCC 181.

6. ⁠Land Acquisition Act, 1894, § 30, No. 1, Acts of Parliament,

1894. (India).

7. Ramalakshmi Ammal v Sivanantha Perumal Sethurayar, (1872) 14 MIA 570.

8 Yash Vala, Women's Equality under Hindu Succession Law Still under Construction in India, 2 JUS CORPUS L.J. 518 (August 2021).

9.[2020] 10 S.C.R. 135.

10. Succession rights of tribal women: Time for gender equality Bar and Bench - Indian Legal news,

https://www.barandbench.com/columns/succession-rights-of-tribal-women-time-to-make-them-gender-equal (last visited April 2, 2025).

11. AIR 2014 Chh 110.

12 .India Const. art. 21.

13. (1996) 5 SCC 125.

14. Sandeep Kindo, 'Continuing Custom': Indigenous Inheritance in the Indian Supreme Court's Kishwar v Bihar Dissent, 25 Austl. J. Asian L. 23, 23-37 (2024).

15. (2000) 8 SCC 587.

16. (1996) 5 SCC 25.

17. Continuing Custom': Indigenous Inheritance in the Indian Supreme Court's Kishwar v Bihar Dissent, 25 Austl. J. Asian L. 24 (2023).

18. (2011) 4 SCC 266.

19. JT 2004 (10) SC 349.

20. India Const. Schedule V.

21. India Const. Schedule VI.

22. Tribal Women's Succession Rights in India, TSCLD,

https://www.tscld.com/tribal-women-equal-succession#:~.text=The%20Hindu%20Succession%20Amendment%20Act,and %20partially%2Fsufficiently%20Hinduized%20tribes (last visited March 29 2025).

23. Roy, Sarat Chandra (1915) The Oraons of Chota Nagpur:

Their History, Economic Life, and Social Organisation, Calcutta: Brahmo Mission Press.

24. Scheduled tribe women not entitled to any "right of survivorship" under Hindu Succession Act: Supreme Court Urges Centre to bring suitable amendment Live Law, https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-hindu-succession-act-survivorship-right-amendment-kamla-neti-d-vs-special-land-acquisition-officer-2022-livelaw-sc-1014-216267 (last visited March 29, 2025).

25. B. Sivaramayya, Women, Law and Social Change: Core