![Open Access](https://i-scholar.in/lib/pkp/templates/images/icons/fulltextgreen.png)
![Restricted Access](https://i-scholar.in/lib/pkp/templates/images/icons/fulltextred.png)
![Open Access](https://i-scholar.in/lib/pkp/templates/images/icons/fulltextgreen.png)
![Open Access](https://i-scholar.in/lib/pkp/templates/images/icons/fulltext_open_medium.gif)
![Restricted Access](https://i-scholar.in/lib/pkp/templates/images/icons/fulltextred.png)
![Restricted Access](https://i-scholar.in/lib/pkp/templates/images/icons/fulltext_restricted_medium.gif)
Law is an Instrument of Economic Justice to Tribal Women : An Experience of Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar
Subscribe/Renew Journal
Some writ petitions (PIL and individual writ) were filed under Article 32 of Constitution of India against the State of Bihar to the Supreme Court. Public Interest Litigation was filed by the editor of ‘Manushi’ (a magazine which takes up the matters to ameliorate the socioeconomic backwardness of Indian women and to secure them equal rights) Smt. Madhu Kishwar, on behalf of the tribal women of Bihar. Individual petitioners were Smt. Sonamuni and Smt. Muki Dui who were widow and married daughter of Muki Banguma, belonged to Ho tribe of Singhbhum District of Bihar who were denied of their right to succession over the property of their deceased husband and father. By challenging the constitutional validity of sections 6, 7, 8 and 76 of the Chhota Nagpur Tenancy, 1908 and customary law prevailing in Bihar and other customary law operating in other parts of parts of India which exclude tribal women from inheritance of land or property belonging to their father, husband, mother, confer the right to inheritance in favour of male heirs or lineal descendants in the male lines only, writ petitions sought declarations from the Supreme Court that the above-mentioned sections and the existing customary laws of tribal communities of Bihar and the rest of India were ultra vires Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 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 (reinforced also by statutory law) is unconstitutional, unjust, unfair and illegal. The above-mentioned writ petitions raise a common question of law that is whether female tribal is entitled to parity with male tribal in intestate succession. An affirmative answer to this issue would have gone a long way not only in ameliorating the socio-economic backwardness not only of tribal women of Bihar or whole India or all Indian women, but also will establish their ‘Right to Equality’, ‘Right to Dignity’ as well as ‘Right to Development’ as mandated in Constitution of India. However, very unfortunately, the Supreme Court in Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar (1996) judgment (a majority decision of M.M. Punchhi and Kuldeep Singh, JJ, K Ramaswami J dissenting) has partially recognised the Fundamental Rights of Tribal Women of Bihar and leaving the other important issues to the Government for taking decisions. In this context, in this paper, firstly, tribal women’s’ ‘Right of Succession’ is analysed from various perspectives in the lager canvas of Fundamental Rights and Human Rights Jurisprudence to find the answer why it is connected to the above-mentioned 3 rights and including Equality Clause; and secondly, Supreme Court’s judgment in Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar which did not strike down the impugned sections of Chhota Nagpur Tenancy act is also critically analysed from different angles, in the canvas of India’s commitment to the international community as reflected in resolutions/declarations of international covenants.
Keywords
Economic Justice, Tribal Women, Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar.
Subscription
Login to verify subscription
User
Font Size
Information
- Article 14: The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the within the territory of India.
- Article 21: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
- chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act 1908.
- Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women, 1979, Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCR), retrieved from http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/ProfessionalInterest/cedaw.pdf
- Declaration of ‘Right to Development Convention’, 1986, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). Retrieved from http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/41/a41r128.htm
- Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. NY: Belknap Press.
- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 SCC (1) 248.
- Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1996 SC 125.
- Knight, M. (1967). Pure theory of law. NY: University of California Press.
- Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, 1985 SCC (3) 545.
- Olivelle, P. (2005). Manu’s code of law - A critical edition and translation of the Manava-Dharmasastra. NY: Oxford University Press.
- Re: Special Courts Bill 1978. (1979). 1 SCC 380.
- Report on Codification of Customary Laws and Inheritance Laws in the Tribal Societies of Orissa by Dr. Bhupinder Singh and Dr. Neeti Mahanti of Jigyansu Tribal Research Centre, sponsored by the Ministry of Welfare, Government of India and submitted on May 19, 1993.
- Samatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1997 Supp (2) SCR 305.
- Section 2 (2), Hindu Succession Act, 1956: Nothing contained in the Act shall apply to the members of any Scheduled tribe within the meaning of clause (25) of Article 366 of the Constitution, unless otherwise directed by the Central Government
![](https://i-scholar.in/public/site/images/abstractview.png)
Abstract Views: 157
![](https://i-scholar.in/public/site/images/pdfview.png)
PDF Views: 0