[ Fantry Mein Jaswal ]

The views and narrative expressed here in reflect the collective sentiments, aspirations and concerns of the women of Arunachal Pradesh. They are drawn from the lived experiences, voices, and perspectives of women across diverse communities, and seek to represent a shared desire for equality, dignity, empowerment and inclusive development. These views are intended to articulate the genuine concerns and expectations of women in Arunachal, and should be understood in this context. It is not intended to dilute tribal protections, customary identity, or safeguards relating to indigenous communities. Rather, it seeks to ensure that the constitutional rights of APST women are protected in a manner consistent with the principles of equality, dignity, fairness, and justice.

The key issues raised herein may be considered under two broad heads:

1. Continuity of APST status of Arunachali women, irrespective of marriage

An APST woman acquires her tribal identity by birth. Her identity flows from her ancestry, community, culture, language, customs, and membership of a Scheduled Tribe recognised under the Constitution. Marriage does not alter these foundational facts. A woman born into an APST community continues to remain a member of that community regardless of whom she marries. Her tribal identity is not derived from her husband, nor can it be extinguished by marriage. The constitutional recognition accorded to Scheduled Tribes is not a privilege granted upon certain conditions. It is a recognition of the historical, social, cultural, and political identity of a community.

Such identity cannot be lost merely because a woman exercises her personal choice in marriage. If an APST man retains his tribal status irrespective of the community to which his spouse belongs, there exists no rational or legally sustainable basis for applying a different standard to an APST woman. To hold otherwise would effectively make a woman’s tribal identity, conditional upon her marital status while leaving that of a man unaffected. Such a distinction would be arbitrary, discriminatory, and inconsistent with the constitutional guarantees of equality.

The above constitutional principles are also firmly supported by binding judicial precedent. The Supreme Court has consistently held that Scheduled Tribe (ST) and Scheduled Caste (SC) status is acquired by birth and not by marriage. In Valsamma Paul vs Cochin University, the Supreme Court held that a woman neither loses her original ST/SC status nor acquires her husband’s community status merely by marrying a person belonging to another community. The court affirmed that caste and tribal identity are determined by birth and remain unchanged by marriage. This principle has been reiterated in Sunita Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh, Rajendra Shrivastava vs State of Maharashtra, Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika vs State of Gujarat & Ors,Shivaeta Rani vs Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and Others.

These well-settled principles have also been consistently reaffirmed by various high courts across the country. The Government of India has also consistently followed the law laid down by the Supreme Court in this regard.

Further, any concern regarding misuse of tribal rights by third parties cannot justify the deprivation of rights of an entire class of APST women. If instances of benami transactions, fraudulent arrangements, or misuse of legal protections exist, such conduct may be addressed through enforcement of law against the persons responsible. The existence of potential misuse cannot become a ground for extinguishing a woman’s constitutional identity.

2. Inheritance and property rights of APST daughters

Where sons and daughters are equally born into the same APST family and belong to the same tribal community, denying inheritance rights to daughters solely on the basis of gender raises serious concerns of equality, dignity, and non-discrimination. Such exclusion is increasingly difficult to reconcile with the constitutional guarantees of equality before law under Article 14 and non-discrimination on the ground of sex under Article 15.

While customary laws have historically governed inheritance in Arunachal, customs must evolve with changing social realities. Women today contribute equally to their families, communities, and society, yet continue to be denied recognition as equal heirs in their natal families. Across India, succession laws have progressively recognised daughters as equal heirs by birth, reflecting the broader constitutional commitment to gender justice. In Vineeta Sharma vsRakesh Sharma (SC, 2020), while interpreting the Hindu Succession Act, the court ruled that daughters possess the same inheritance rights as sons. In Ram Charan vs Sukhram (SC, 2025) the court ruled that tribal women or their legal heirs have an equal right to ancestral property.

It is therefore appropriate to reconsider whether customary practices that completely exclude APST daughters from inheritance remain just and equitable in present times. The right of an APST daughter to inherit from her natal family is a birth-based right and should not depend on her marital status. Marriage does not sever her identity, lineage, or connection to her family and tribe. Accordingly, APST women should retain inheritance rights, irrespective of whether they marry within or outside the community. Importantly, the issue of inheritance rights for daughters must not be conflated with the protection of tribal land.

Safeguarding tribal land is a legitimate objective, but gender-based exclusion from inheritance cannot be the means to achieve it. Appropriate legal safeguards can protect tribal land while ensuring that daughters are not denied their rightful share solely because they are women. The present system also leaves many women vulnerable in cases of widowhood, divorce, abandonment, domestic violence, polygamy or other circumstances where access to natal family property becomes essential for their security and dignity. Rights matter most when family support is unavailable. Recognising inheritance rights of APST daughters would not weaken tribal customs or identity. Rather, it would strengthen them by aligning them with the constitutional values of equality, dignity, and justice while preserving legitimate tribal land safeguards.

Conclusion

The issues reflected herein ultimately concern a fundamental principle: Marriage should not operate to erase the identity, dignity, or rights of an APST woman.

An APST woman remains APST by birth. An APST daughter remains a daughter, irrespective of marriage. And laws intended to protect tribal communities should not be interpreted in a manner that results in the exclusion or disadvantage of tribal women themselves. The state must take measures that uphold constitutional principles, protect the rights of APST women, and simultaneously preserve the legitimate interests of tribal communities and customary institutions. (Fantry Mein Jaswal is a retired IRS officer, and former chairperson of the AP State Finance Commission)