Manni Devi v. Rama Devi: Section 2(2) and the succession rights of Scheduled Tribe daughters

The facts in brief

The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 codified and reformed the law of intestate succession for Hindus, and the 2005 amendment made daughters coparceners with equal rights in ancestral property. But that codified, gender-equal regime does not reach everyone who might otherwise be governed by Hindu law. Section 2(2) of the Act provides that nothing in it shall apply to the members of any Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of the Constitution, unless the Central Government, by notification, directs otherwise. For Scheduled Tribe families, succession is therefore governed not by the codified Act but by tribal custom — which is frequently patriarchal and which, in many communities, denies daughters any share at all.

Manni Devi, a woman of the Meena community — a Scheduled Tribe in Rajasthan — claimed a share by inheritance in property belonging to her father, who had alienated it through a gift deed. Her claim was dismissed by the revenue authorities, who held that because Section 2(2) excludes Scheduled Tribes from the Act unless specifically notified, she could not invoke the codified succession rights available to non-Scheduled-Tribe Hindu daughters. Her entitlement, if any, fell to be governed by tribal custom, under which she was denied a share.

She challenged that dismissal before the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand heard the matter and, on 22 July 2025, restored her claim, condemned the exclusion, and issued a strong recommendation to the legislature to amend Section 2(2).

The constitutional and statutory backdrop

The exclusion in Section 2(2) was conceived in 1956 as a measure of respect for tribal autonomy — leaving Scheduled Tribes to their own customary law rather than imposing the codified Hindu regime upon them. But in practice the carve-out has had a sharply gendered effect. Where tribal custom denies daughters a share, the exclusion leaves Scheduled Tribe women without the equal-coparcener rights that the 2005 amendment conferred on every other Hindu daughter, and without any codified entitlement to fall back on.

The Supreme Court had already flagged the problem. In Kamla Neti v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, the Court declined to grant relief on the facts before it but pointedly asked the Central Government to consider amending Section 2(2) so that the daughters of Scheduled Tribes are not denied the right of survivorship and equality that other Hindu women enjoy. That observation supplied the constitutional momentum that the Rajasthan High Court took up.

Justice Dhand measured the exclusion against Articles 14 and 15, against the directive principles in Articles 38 and 46, and against the dignity guarantee of Article 21. The question he posed was simple: if daughters of non-Scheduled-Tribe Hindu communities are entitled to an equal share in the father's property, on what rational or constitutional basis is the same right denied to Scheduled Tribe daughters?

What the Court held

The Court held that Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act operates as a formidable barrier that prevents female members of Scheduled Tribes from asserting their succession rights in ancestral property — a discrimination it described as manifestly unjustified after more than seven decades of independence. There is no rational or constitutional basis to deny to Scheduled Tribe daughters the equal share that non-Scheduled-Tribe Hindu daughters enjoy; the exclusion offends the equality and dignity guarantees of the Constitution and is out of step with the Supreme Court's observations in Kamla Neti.

On that footing the Court restored Manni Devi's claim, and — invoking constitutional values — urged Parliament and the Central Government to amend Section 2(2) so that the succession rights of Scheduled Tribe women do not remain hostage to judicial discretion or un-notified custom. The Court expressed the hope that the Central Government would look into the matter and take an appropriate decision to safeguard the rights of Scheduled Tribe women.

Restoration of the claim versus reform of the provision

A notable feature of the judgment is the line it draws between what a court can do and what only the legislature can do. The Court restored Manni Devi's individual claim — granting her relief on the facts. But it did not strike down or read down Section 2(2). Instead it urged Parliament to amend the provision.

That restraint reflects the separation-of-powers logic that runs through this line of cases. The exclusion of Scheduled Tribes from the codified regime is a deliberate legislative policy choice, however questionable its gendered effect; reversing it across the board — deciding whether and how to extend the Act to Scheduled Tribes — is a legislative act. A High Court can vindicate an individual claimant's constitutional equality, and can press the lever of legislative reform through a strong recommendation, but the durable fix is an amendment. The judgment thus combines immediate relief with an institutional appeal.

Why this matters

The decision is a notable High Court intervention on intersectional discrimination — the combined effect of tribal status and gender — in the law of inheritance. It will be cited in every dispute where Section 2(2) is raised as a bar to a Scheduled Tribe daughter's inheritance claim, and it adds a powerful voice to the growing chorus pressing for legislative reform.

It also illustrates how High Courts can carry forward a Supreme Court signal. Kamla Neti asked the Centre to consider amending the provision; the Rajasthan High Court took that invitation and converted it into a concrete grant of relief plus a renewed call for amendment, building pressure that a single apex-court observation, left alone, might not have generated.

The wider trajectory

The ruling is part of a fast-converging movement across High Courts and the Supreme Court pushing the Centre to extend codified, equal succession rights to Scheduled Tribe women. Parallel suggestions have come from other High Courts, and the issue may yet be consolidated before the Supreme Court or taken up by the Law Commission or the relevant ministry.

In the meantime, the practical effect of Manni Devi is to give revenue courts and subordinate forums a strong authority to follow in granting Scheduled Tribe daughters relief pending amendment — and to give claimants a citable judgment that names the exclusion for what it is. For the law of succession and gender equality alike, the decision marks a step toward closing one of the last large gaps in the equal inheritance rights of Indian women.

Related on Valkya

• Shayara Bano v. Union of India: the triple talaq judgment
• Joseph Shine v. Union of India: decriminalising adultery

Sources

1. SCC Times — "Section 2(2) of Hindu Succession Act must be amended to give Scheduled Tribe daughters succession rights: Rajasthan High Court": https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/08/09/rajasthan-hc-scheduled-tribe-daughter-succession-rights/
2. LiveLaw — Rajasthan High Court Annual Digest 2025, Part II: https://www.livelaw.in/amp/high-court/rajasthan-high-court/rajasthan-high-court-annual-digest-2025-518711
3. Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) — judgment copy, Manni Devi v. Rama Devi: https://s3hvtw.courtbook.in/2025/08/0Ahigh-court-upholds-tribal-womans-right-to-ancestral-property-under-equality-law.pdf
4. Supreme Court Observer — coverage of Hindu succession and equality jurisprudence: https://www.scobserver.in/