Case Brief
Case Title: Nawang & Anr. v. Bahadur & Ors.
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 4980 of 2017
Connected Citation: (2024) SCC OnLine SC 3810 (Tirith Kumar & Ors. v. Daduram & Ors.)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Date of Judgment: October 8, 2025
Background Facts:
The Civil Appeal was filed against a judgment passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in RSA No. 8/2003. The core challenge in the Supreme Court was specifically limited to a direction issued by the High Court in paragraph 63 of its judgment.
The High Court's direction sought to mandate that daughters in the tribal areas of Himachal Pradesh shall inherit property in accordance with the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA), and not as per local customs and usages, with the stated goal of preventing social injustice and exploitation of women.
Issues before the Court:
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:
- Whether the High Court was legally justified in issuing a direction that members of a Scheduled Tribe in Himachal Pradesh must be governed by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, for property inheritance, despite the statutory exclusion under Section 2(2) of the Act.
- Whether such a broad direction was appropriate, given that the issue was neither directly nor substantially involved in the original civil proceedings.
The Supreme Court of India has reiterated that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA), does not apply to members of Scheduled Tribes (STs) in the country. A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra set aside a sweeping direction issued by the Himachal Pradesh High Court that had sought to override tribal customary laws.
The case, titled Nawang and another v. Bahadur and others, concerned a 2015 judgment from the Himachal Pradesh High Court. While deciding a second appeal, the High Court, aiming to prevent "social injustice and exploitation," had directed that daughters in the State's tribal areas must inherit property in accordance with the HSA rather than tribal customs.
The Apex Court observed that this directive, contained in paragraph 63 of the High Court judgment, ran directly contrary to Section 2(2) of the HSA, which explicitly states:
"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."
Relying on its earlier decision in Tirith Kumar & Ors. v. Daduram & Ors. (2024), the Bench emphasized that ST members are expressly excluded from the purview of the Act.
The Supreme Court further noted that the High Court's direction was a gross overreach, as the issue of extending the HSA to tribal daughters was not among the issues framed or questions argued before it. The Bench observed:
"...no such directions... could have been issued by the High Court, more so in a case where the issue was neither directly nor substantially involved in the intra-party appeal, arising out of the judgment and decree passed in a civil proceeding."
While the Court firmly maintained the statutory exclusion, it acknowledged the larger discussion around the issue. It noted that the Supreme Court itself, in both the Tirith Kumar and Kamla Neti v. LAO (2023) judgments, had previously urged Parliament to consider amending the provisions of the HSA to extend its application to Scheduled Tribes.
The appeal was argued by Advocate Rajesh Gupta for the appellant, with Advocate Rebecca Mishra assisting the Court as Amicus Curiae.