On July 17, 2025, the Supreme Court of India, in a case concerning Chhattisgarh’s Gond community, ruled in favour of tribal women’s rights in ancestral property. This judgement can have momentous ramifications, much beyond its specific context.Applying the principle of “justice, equity and good conscience” where neither codified law nor clear evidence of custom existed, and especially invoking article 14 of the Indian Constitution (which guarantees equality for all before the law), the two-bench judgement upheld the rights of a tribal woman in ancestral property in the state of Chhattisgarh (Ramcharan & others vs Sukhram & others). How did this judgement by Sanjay Karol and Joymalya Bagchi come about and what are its implications?The case concerned the property claims of a deceased Gond tribal woman, Dhaiya, whose rights had been denied while those of her five brothers were recognised. Dhaiya’s children filed a case for her share in the ancestral property of Bhajju Bhajan Gond, their maternal grandfather, mainly on the grounds that they followed Hindu traditions, and under current Hindu law their mother had equal claims as her brothers to the joint property. Some supplementary grounds were also given. The backgroundThe case came to the Supreme Court (SC) on appeal in 2023, after passing through the Trial Court, the First Appellate Court, and the High Court, all of which had rejected the claim.According to the background information provided in the SC judgment document, the case was filed in a trial court in 1992 by Dhayia’s heirs (Ram Charan & Others) but was rejected on the grounds that no evidence was presented either of a Gond custom that the daughter could get ancestral property, nor of the family following recognised Hindu practices.The first appellate court (where the case then went on appeal), in its judgement in 2008, upheld the trial court’s ruling. The appellant/plaintiffs then appealed to the Chhattisgarh high court in 2009, which too in its judgement of 2022 upheld the Trial Court’s ruling – noting that no evidence was presented of a female heir being entitled to inherit ancestral property by custom, nor of the adoption of Hindu traditions by the family.Most importantly, the high court also rejected the counsel’s plea that in the absence of evidence of custom, the principle of “justice, equity and good conscience” must prevail. The case then went on appeal to the Supreme Court.The Supreme Court’s argumentsThe Supreme Court concurred with the lower courts on one count but diverged radically on other counts. It first argued that Hindu law could not come into play, since Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 had unequivocally excluded its application to Scheduled Tribes. This was in keeping with prior SC judgements, including one in 2022 (Kamla Neti vs Special Land Acquisition Officer & others).The SC further argued that where Gond customs were silent on women’s inheritance rights over parental property, the presumption could not be in favour of denying women a share. Rather, the judges noted – giving the argument an interesting twist – instead of the plaintiff having to prove that a custom in favour of women existed, the defendants needed to prove that women were not entitled to inherit property by custom.The most radical shift in the SC judgement lay in its argument that since “neither any particular law of a community nor custom could be brought into application by either side, we now proceed to examine the argument advanced before the high court, that is, the principle of justice, equity and good conscience” (para 15).Citing several past cases where this principle had been applied, including a case dealt with by the high court of Chhattisgarh where the property rights of female heirs had been upheld, the SC ruled in favour of Dhaiya and her heirs.Two of its arguments are worth noting: First, that “unless otherwise prescribed in law, denying the female heir a right in the property only exacerbates gender division and discrimination, which the law should ensure to weed out” (para 27). Second, that, “denying Dhaiya her share in her father’s property, when the custom is silent, would violate her right to equality vis-a-vis her brothers or those of her legal heirs vis-à-vis their cousin” (para 28).Hence the SC ruled: “… we are of the firm view that in keeping with the principles of justice, equity and good conscience, read along with the overarching effect of Article 14 of the Constitution, the appellant-plaintiffs, being Dhaiya’s legal heirs, are entitled to their equal share in the property” (para 29). Wider implications for legal reformThe implications of this judgment, in my assessment, go much beyond Dhaiya’s case. Based on the principles of justice, equity and good conscience, and Article 14 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court judgement sets a precedent for giving Scheduled Tribe women rights in family property as daughters (and their heirs) equal to the rights of sons (and their heirs). The judgement can thus become the benchmark for extending gender equal inheritance rights to all tribal women in India.In 2005, I had spearheaded a successful civil society campaign to amend the Hindu Succession Act to make it gender equal. The HSAA 2005 gave daughters equal rights with sons in coparcenary joint family property. Two decades later, this July 2025 judgement of the SC has effectively extended a similar right to tribal women. This is momentous.At the same time, to strengthen and expand those rights, we need to move beyond case law and precedent to codify tribal women’s rights via statutory enactment. This could initially be done by individual states but would be most effective if undertaken at the federal level. The SC’s July judgement provides two strong justifications for such codification: (a) on constitutional grounds, based on Article 14; and (b) on the principles of gender justice and inclusion.To this, a third can be added, namely that of non-discrimination between women of different communities in India. Today, Hindu, Christian and Parsi women are governed by different – but gender-equal – laws of succession. A failure to extend equal rights to tribal women by codified law would be discriminatory in intra-gender terms. Muslim women’s rights also need reform, as I wrote in the Indian Express, but that requires a separate discussion.A discussion is also needed on potential reference models for codifying tribal women’s rights. Hindu succession law appears unsuitable, given its complexity, especially its distinction between separate and coparcenary property.The secular Indian Succession Act of 1925 may provide a simpler alternative as a prototype to build on. Special provisions may well be required for matrilineal tribal communities, such as the Garos and Khasis in Meghalaya, which customarily grant women special rights. These issues need careful reflection but also expedited attention.The idea of codifying gender-equal inheritance laws for tribal communities has had a contentious history. An opposing argument is that replacing tribal customs with codified laws would undermine tribal identity. This is not unlike an even older argument made in peasant movements that calling for gender inequality would be divisive and undermine the movement.I believe these are misleading arguments. Progressive movements need to be built on equal rights for all community members, especially women. You cannot credibly seek justice for a community by turning a blind eye to embedded gender injustice within that community.It is also sometimes argued that customary laws in India’s tribal communities don’t need reform as they are already gender equal. In my own detailed research, however, I found little evidence of tribal customs that uphold gender-equal inheritance, except rare examples of some (not all) matrilineal communities.Even among these – such as the Garos in Meghalaya – customs favouring women have been seriously eroded over time. I believe the way forward is to codify the inheritance laws for tribal communities to make them gender equal, while strengthening other institutions to ensure that the broader aspects of tribal identity and culture, that the communities value, remain protected.Beyond legal reformEven with statutory law, tribal women will need protection (like Hindu women do) to deal with pressure from brothers to sign away their shares. Here it will be important to have both civil society oversight when inheritance shares are registered by the village patwari (or tribal equivalent), as well as judicial oversight, such as having women sign an affidavit if they want to forfeit their shares (to provide a layer of protection against family pressure), as Hindu women have to do.Equally, as with women of other communities, tribal women will need civil society and media efforts to enhance their awareness of their legal rights, and their knowledge of out-of-court mediating bodies, such as Nari Adalats, as well as of government provisions for legal aid, should they wish to contest their claims.While legal reform alone cannot guarantee women’s ownership and control over property in practice, since social norms often trump progressive reform, it is still an essential step towards that goal. Here the 17 July 2025 Supreme Court Judgement – passed 20 years after the HSAA was reformed for Hindu women – is a very welcome first step.Bina Agarwal is Professor of Development Economics and Environment, GDI, The University of Manchester & Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi.