The Supreme Court has asked the Central Government to consider amending Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act that excludes female members of Scheduled Tribes from having the equal share in the property of the father.
A bench of Justice MR Shah and Justice Krishna Murari said that there can be no justification whatsoever for denying the right of survival to female members of a community.
As per the judgement when a daughter belonging to the non-tribal is entitled to the equal share in the property of the father, there is no reason to deny similar right to the daughter of the tribal community. Female tribal is entitled to parity with male tribal in intestate succession.
The bench further stated it is about time that the court reconsiders the provisions of the Act that have been prevalent since 70 years of the Constitution denying daughters of Scheduled Tribe being denied equal rights.
The bench said that we hope and trust that the Central government will look into the matter and take appropriate decision taking into consideration the right to equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
The Court was hearing an against an order by the Orissa High Court in a dispute regarging amount of compensation in a land acquired.
The appellant argued that the denial of right to succession to a Scheduled Tribe woman amounted to deprivation of the right to livelihood under Article 21.
The respondents on the other side said that being a member of Scheduled Tribe, the provisions of the Act were not applicable as she was a woman and has no right of survivorship in the joint property.
The Court agreed with the respondent that as long as Section 2(2) of the Act stands without amendment, parties would be governed by them.
The bench said that though on equity we may be with the appellant being daughter .. unless Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act is amened, the parties being members of the Scheduled Tribe are governed by Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act.
In this regard, the bench noted that if the claim of the appellant was accepted, it would tantamount to amending the law.
The appeal was dismissed after the court said that it is for the legislature to amend the law and not the court