22 July 2025: Indian Express Editorial Analysis

1. Listen To The Court
(Source: Editorial Page, The Indian Express)

Topic: GS1 (Indian Society: Tribal Issues, Women & Society), GS2 (Polity & Governance: Fundamental Rights, Social Justice, Judiciary), GS4 (Ethics: Equality, Gender Justice)

Context

The editorial analyzes the Supreme Court’s July 2025 ruling affirming that a woman from a tribal community has an equal right to her family’s ancestral property. The verdict set aside a Chhattisgarh High Court decision, clarified the role of customary law vis-à-vis the Constitution, and marked a vital step towards gender justice and equality in tribal inheritance rights

Introduction

Tribal inheritance in India often follows customary law, which historically excluded women from ownership or succession. However, the Supreme Court’s latest decision challenges this precedent, asserting the primacy of constitutional equality over unjust customs, and reinforcing the right of tribal women and their heirs to ancestral property.

Background and Legal Journey

• The case was initiated by the heirs of Dhaiya, a Scheduled Tribe woman, who sought a share in her maternal grandfather’s property.

• Their claims were contested by male relatives citing tribal customs that allegedly barred female succession.

• Lower and High Courts rejected the claim due to lack of evidence of any custom permitting female inheritance, placing the burden of proof on the women

Supreme Court’s Key Observations

Customary Law vs. Constitutional Mandate

• The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA) explicitly excludes Scheduled Tribes (Section 2(2)), so their inheritance is governed by customary practices.

• The Court asserted that constitutional principles—especially Article 14 (equality) and Article 15 (non-discrimination)—override customary laws which perpetuate discrimination.

Burden of Proof Inverted

• The Supreme Court ruled that women should not be required to prove a custom allowing them to inherit.

• Instead, those opposing female succession must prove the existence of a valid, exclusionary custom. This corrects a patriarchal legal bias that presumes exclusion.

Evolving Customs

• Customs “cannot remain stuck in time”; they must evolve in accordance with values of justice and equality.

• The Court affirmed that if no specific custom excluding women exists, denying them rights is unconstitutional.

Constitutional and Social Analysis

• The decision recognized that women’s exclusion from inheritance widens gender gaps and perpetuates systemic discrimination.

• The Court referenced Articles 14, 15, 38, and 46 to emphasize India’s constitutional ethos of equality and affirmative action for weaker sections, including ST women.

• The bench encouraged the legislature to consider amending laws to remove exclusions within the Hindu Succession Act itself, making equal inheritance rights universal, including for tribal women.

Implications and Way Forward

• Strengthening Tribal Women’s Rights: Tribal women and their heirs now have firmer legal ground to claim ancestral property.

• Modernization of Customary Law: The judgment compels communities and lawmakers to progressively align customs with constitutional principles.

• Judicial Role in Social Reform: The ruling signals the Court’s willingness to protect marginalized groups even if legislative action lags.

• Burden on Legislature: Parliament may need to consider amendments to ensure no community is left out of succession reforms.

• Ethical Significance: The decision presents a strong ethical message—equality and dignity override outdated customs, and the law should be a tool for social justice.

Conclusion

This landmark Supreme Court verdict bridges the gap between historical injustices embedded in tribal customary law and the progressive goals of the Indian Constitution. It serves as both a corrective and inspiration for lawmakers, society, and the judiciary to uphold gender justice and equality for all

Practice Question: (GS-2 | 15 Marks | 250 Words) Discuss the significance of the Supreme Court’s 2025 verdict on inheritance rights for tribal women. How does it balance customary law and constitutional principles? Analyze its broader implications for social justice and gender equality in India.

Also Read: The Hindu Editorial Analysis- 22 July 2025

2. Verdict Should Wake Us Up

(Source: Editorial Page, The Indian Express)

Topic: GS2 (Governance, Polity & Criminal Justice System), GS3 (Internal Security, Terrorism, Ethics in Investigation), GS4 (Ethics in Governance), GS1 (Society: Victims & Justice)

Context

The editorial reacts to the recent acquittal of all accused in the July 11, 2006 Mumbai train blast case, where, 19 years post-incident, the justice system failed to bring closure. The Bombay High Court’s verdict highlights deeper systemic flaws in investigation, prosecution, and the protection of victims’ and society’s interests in major terror cases.

Introduction

The Supreme Court’s judgment allows the use of covertly recorded conversations as evidence in disputes between spouses, settling conflicting approaches earlier seen in different High Courts. The decision reflects a judicial balancing act between the right to privacy and the right to a fair trial, testing how fundamental rights adapt to technology and modern relationships

Systemic Failures in Investigation and Prosecution

Ineffective Investigation

• The blasts resulted in over 180 deaths and 800 injuries, yet, after nearly two decades, courts found investigation and prosecution lacking.
• Repeated FIRs, poor evidence collection, and over-reliance on confessions or circumstantial evidence undermined case strength.

Fear and Pressure

• Pressure to deliver results in high-profile terror cases can lead to hasty arrests and procedural shortcuts, further weakening the process in court.

Challenges within the Criminal Justice System

Lack of Specialization & Training

• Police and anti-terror squads (e.g., ATS, NIA) often lack specialized training in terror cases, especially in evidence collection and handling witness intimidation.
• Advanced criminal organizations exploit these gaps to evade conviction.

Inadequate Witness Protection

• Fear and lack of security discourage witnesses from testifying, especially in organized crime or terror-related cases.

Judicial Concerns

• Courts are becoming increasingly skeptical of police evidence and witness depositions, particularly when not supported by robust, scientific, or technological proof.

Broader Implications

Victims and Public Trust

• Prolonged trials and eventual acquittals deepen the suffering of victims’ families and erode faith in justice.

Ethical Dilemmas

• The “innocent must not suffer” principle is fundamental, but it must be balanced by fair, timely, and competent investigation so that real perpetrators do not go scot-free.

Lessons and Reforms Needed

Professionalizing Investigation

• Create well-trained, tech-savvy squads to handle terror and organized crime cases.

• Invest in forensic science and modern investigative tools.

Witness Protection

• Implement robust witness protection and support programs to counteract fear, intimidation, or retribution.

Addressing Systemic Delays

• Streamline investigative protocols and reduce legal bottlenecks in terror cases.

• Encourage judicial capacity building in handling complex, technical evidence.

Legislative & Structural Reform

• Introduce accountability measures for lapses in investigation and prosecution.

• Foster transparency and periodic review of police and prosecutorial performance in sensitive cases.

Conclusion / Way Forward

The verdict in the Mumbai train blast case is both a tragedy and a lesson. To avoid similar failures:

• The criminal justice system must modernize its investigation, prosecution, and victim support capabilities.

• There must be a national commitment to the rule of law, not just the letter but the spirit—investigating competently, prosecuting ethically, and delivering justice efficiently and humanely.

• These reforms are vital not just for justice in individual cases, but for sustaining public trust and national security in an era of evolving internal security threats.

---

Practice Question: (GS-3 | 10 Marks | 150 Words) The acquittal in the 2006 Mumbai train blasts case highlights major deficiencies in India’s criminal justice system. Critically examine the systemic challenges in investigating and prosecuting terror cases in India. Suggest comprehensive reforms to restore public faith in justice and ensure effective internal security.

Read more – 21 July 2025 : Indian Express Editorial Analysis