- (1.) These two writ petitions raise common question of law: whether female tribal is entitled to parity with male tribal in intestate succession The first petitioner is an Editor of a Magazine "Manushi" espousing the causes to ameliorate the social and economic backwardness of Indian women and to secure them equal rights. Petitioners Nos. 2 Smt. Sonamuni and 3 Smt. Muki Dui are respectively widow and married daughter of Muki Banguma, Ho tribe of Longo village, Sonua Block, Singhbhum District in Bihar state. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 219/ 86, Juliana Lakra is an Oraon Christian tribal women from Chhota Nagpur area. They seek declaration that Sections 7, 8 and 76 of the Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 6 of 1908,(for short, the 'Act') are ultra vires Articles 14,15 and 21 of the Constitution of India. They contend that the customary law operating in the Bihar state and other parts of the country excluding tribal women from inheritance of land or property belonging to father, husband, mother and conferment of right to inheritance to the male heirs or lineal descendants being founded solely on sex is discriminatory. The tribal women toil, share with men equally the daily sweat, troubles and tribulations in agricultural operations and family management. Their discrimination based on the customary law of inheritance is unconstitutional, unjust, unfair and illegal. Even usufructuary rights conferred on a widow or an unmarried daughter become illusory due to diverse pressures brought to bear brunt at the behest of lineal descendants or their extermination. Even married or unmarried daughters are excluded from inheritance, when they were subjected to adultery by non-tribals; they are denuded of the right to enjoy the property of her father or deceased husband for life. The widow on remarriage is denied inherited property of her former husband. They have elaborated by narrating several incidents in which the women either were forced to give up their life interest or became target of violent attacks or murdered. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 in the first writ petition sought police protection for their lives and interim directions were given.
(2.) When this court has taken up the matter for hearing, in light of the stand of the respondents taken at that time to suitably amend the Act, by order dated December 16, 1986, the case was adjourned with the hope that the State Government would suitably amend Sections 7 and 8 of the Act. By further order dated August 6, 1991, this court after being apprised of the State Government constituting a Committee to examine the desirability to amend the Act giving equal rights of inheritance to women, further adjourned the hearing awaiting the report of the Committee. The State-level Tribal Advisory Board consisting of the Chief Minister, Cabinet Ministers, legislators and parliamentarians representing the tribal areas, met on July 23, 1988 and decided as under: "The tribal society is dominated by males. This however, does not mean that the female members are neglected. A female member in a tribal family has right of usufruct in the property owned by her father till she is unmarried and the same is the property of her husband after the marriage. However, she does not have any right to transfer her share to any body by any means whatsoever. A widow will have right to usufruct of the husbands' property till such time she is issueless and, in the event of her death the property will revert back to the legal heirs of her late husband. In case of a widow having offspring the children succeed the property of the father and the mother will be a care taker of the property till the children attain majority. The Sub-Committee also felt that every tribal does have some land and in case the right of inheritance in the ancestral property is granted to the female descendants, this will enlarge the threat of alienation in the tribal land in the hands of non-tribals. The female members being given right of transfer of their rights in the origin of malpractices like dowry and the like prevalent in the other non-tribal societies."
(3.) When the matter was taken up for final disposal and the resolution of the Board was brought to the notice of this Court, by order dated October 11, 1991, this court further expressed thus: "Scheduled tribe people are as much citizens as others and they are entitled to the benefit of guarantees of the Constitution. It may be that the law can provide reasonable regulation in the be that matter of succession to property with a view to maintaining cohesiveness in regard to Scheduled Tribes and their properties. But exclusion from inheritance would not be appropriate. Since this aspect of the matter has not been examined by the State of Bihar and the feasibility of permitting inheritance and simultaneously regulating such inheritance for the purpose of ensuring that the property does not go out of the family by way of transfer or otherwise we are of the view that in the peculiar facts of the case the State of Bihar should re-examine the matter.";