Vizokhole Ltu
Senior Research Associate (NESRC)
The Supreme Court of India’s landmark judgment on July 17, 2025, in a case involving Chhattisgarh’s Gond community – wherein the plaintiff, children of a deceased Gond tribal woman, was granted the right to ancestral property – has ignited significant deliberation. While the ruling based on the principle of ‘justice, equality and good conscience’ and article 14 of the constitution, is historic and a crucial affirmation of inheritance rights for Gond tribal women in particular and other women in general, it also opens the door to a broader and more complex set of questions. Can the Supreme Court truly salvage the inheritance rights of tribal women from the constitutionally recognised customary laws? Or in other words, do the inheritance rights of tribal women truly require rescue through statutory laws from customary laws?
While the push for equal rights and gender-sensitive legislation is essential across all communities in India, the move to codify tribal customary laws – especially in the Northeast – may ultimately prove counterproductive. Customary laws are inherently oral traditions, shaped and interpreted by community custodians. Codifying these laws risks freezing them in time, thereby undermining their flexible nature and, by extension, tribal identity itself. Moreover, legal reform does not automatically translate to equality for marginalised groups – such as tribal women in the context of ownership and inheritance rights. Numerous instances show that even existing codified or gender-specific laws often fall short of their goals due to factors like high legal costs, time delays, inflexible nature unless amended through the formal process of enacting new legislation, and frequent manipulation by the wealthy and powerful. This is not to suggest that statutory laws are fundamentally flawed, but rather that both customary and statutory systems are vulnerable to exploitation by those in positions of authority. Therefore, the failure to ensure equal inheritance rights for tribal women is not simply due to the absence of codified laws. Instead, it reflects deeper systemic and structural exclusions—barriers that must be addressed through ongoing reform and adaptation over time.
This raises a critical question: How can gender-sensitive inheritance norms/laws be extended to tribal communities without compromising their cultural identity? There is no singular answer or universal solution. Rather, the issue calls for multi-faceted, context-specific approaches that reflect the diverse social and legal structures of tribal communities across India. In some cases – such as among the Gonds of Chhattisgarh in peninsular India – codifying women’s inheritance rights may indeed help secure greater gender equity. However, this approach may not be suitable in other contexts, particularly in the Northeast, where customary practices are constitutionally recognised that complicate the imposition of uniform legal reforms. Besides, the diverse sociolegal realities of tribal communities across India, especially the differences between those in peninsular, the Northeast, or other regions of India, demand a nuanced and context-sensitive analysis of the judgment’s wider implications.
Gender, Customary laws, and Development
With the rise of neoliberalism as a dominant global and national ideology, the concept of 'development' has undergone a significant transformation. In India, this shift is particularly evident in the state’s approach to the Northeast region, where development is often narrowly framed in terms of economic growth, large-scale infrastructure projects, and resource extraction.
One of the consequential outcomes of this development paradigm is the commodification of land as these development policies and schemes are inherently based on the logic of market rationality, overshowing the collective approach to land management. This transition not only implicated the economic aspect but also the socio-cultural ethos, thereby reconfiguring the very notions of community, land, and identity. The rise in land speculation and market volatility further exacerbates inequalities, severely limiting access to land for already marginalised sections, particularly tribal women who are customarily excluded from landed property.
While it is imperative to premise the principle of the recent judgement for an inclusive change to ensure non-discrimination, tribal women should not be merely viewed as passive recipients of patriarchal norms and structures. Rather, they actively participate in shaping, contesting, and transforming the very systems that seek to define and constrain them. Their roles are multifaceted: they can be collaborators, critics, and change-makers, often negotiating power within complex socio-cultural and institutional frameworks. This is not to suggest that systemic exclusion does not exist, rather, the prevailing structures often privilege men over women, reinforcing gender hierarchies in both formal and informal institutions. However, recognising women’s agency is essential for a meaningful engagement with gender justice, as it shifts the focus from women as victims to women as political and social actors in their own right.
Consider, for instance, the debate surrounding the implementation of 33% reservation for women in Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) in Nagaland. While the issue is viewed from multiple perspectives – such as tribal resistance to top-down legal impositions and the reluctance of male tribal bodies to allow women’s participation – an equally vital perspective centres on the experiences and voices of women themselves. The Naga Mothers’ Association (NMA) played a pivotal role in advocating for women's political representation in ULBs, challenging the entrenched gender biases within the predominantly male-dominated tribal civil bodies that strongly opposed the move. The 33% reservation for women was successfully implemented in the 2024 ULB election. Rather than framing the issue solely between tradition and modernity, this case highlights the potential for a dialogue and negotiation within local governance structures. It brings to light the evolving character of customary law and the capacity for internal reform driven by community discourse. More importantly, it underscores the emergence of a critical public conscience – a growing awareness within society about the need to reconcile gender justice with cultural autonomy.
This ongoing conversation is not just about legal reform but about cultivating a democratic ethos grounded in inclusion, equity, and collective reflection – an urgent need in the current sociopolitical landscape. While many argue that ULBs fall outside the scope of customary law – given their statutory and administrative character – there is a compelling case to be made that, in practice, ULBs operate within the socio-cultural framework shaped by customary institutions.
Despite the constitutional ambiguity surrounding the exact boundaries of Article 371A, its influence extends beyond clearly defined customary domains and permeates the functioning of governance structures like ULBs. As such, the debate over ULB elections and women’s reservation in Nagaland cannot be disentangled from the broader implications of Article 371A, which continues to shape both institutional authority and the contours of public discourse in the state.
The intention here is not to romanticise such a development, as such instances remain relatively small – power and control continues to be predominantly concentrated in the hands of male members. However, recognising the agency of communities, particularly women’s agency in this case, is essential in fostering meaningful dialogue around social justice. Rather than advocating for uniform laws or blanket rights in the name of gender equality, it is important to foreground the specific, context-based social structures that shape lived realities. What is needed is a dual approach that considers existing statutory and customary reforms, informed by the socio-political histories and cultural contexts of each community. Progressive legal norms and frameworks must be adapted – not imposed – to reflect what is most appropriate and just for the society or communitiy in question. A nuanced, locally grounded reform agenda holds greater promise for achieving gender justice than a one-size-fits-all legal model.
