SUMAN K SHRIVASTAVA
Some cases do not announce their importance when they begin. They enter the courtroom as ordinary disputes, framed in the familiar language of family conflict and property claims. Narayan Soren & Others v. Ranjan Murmu & Others was one such case. Yet beneath its formal title lay a deeper and more enduring question—whether a Santhali woman, acting as a widow, could adopt a child and be recognised by law.
What appeared to be a private disagreement would, over time, become a quiet landmark in the jurisprudence of tribal women’s rights in Jharkhand.
The Beginning: A Widow’s Decision in the Santhal Parganas
The story began in the late 1970s in the Santhal Parganas. A Santhali woman, widowed and without a son, adopted a child according to the customs of her community. The adoption was not hidden or informal. Ceremonies were performed, elders of the village were present, and, in due course, a deed of adoption was registered.
For the widow, the act was neither rebellion nor novelty. It was a way to ensure continuity of family life, social security, and dignity within a society where survival often depended upon kinship and land.
Contesting Authority: Family, Property, and Patriarchy
The adoption soon became the subject of challenge. Male relatives questioned the widow’s authority, asserting that under Santhal custom a woman—particularly a widow—had no right to adopt a child. If the adoption was declared invalid, the property would revert to male agnates.
Though framed as a legal argument, the dispute reflected a deeper social struggle over authority, inheritance, and gender roles within the family.
The Early Judicial Response: Trial and Appellate Courts
The dispute first reached the civil court in the early 1980s. The trial court examined oral testimony from members of the Santhali community, considered the customary ceremonies performed, and reviewed documentary evidence. It found that adoption was recognised under Santhal custom and that a widow was not barred from adopting a child. The suit was dismissed.
An appeal followed. In the mid-1980s, the appellate court re-appreciated the evidence and affirmed the findings of the trial court. Once again, the courts held that Santhal custom permitted a widow to adopt.
A Case That Travelled Through Time
In 1987, a second appeal was filed before the High Court. What followed was a long wait. Years passed. Social realities changed. Jharkhand itself emerged as a separate State in 2000. Yet the case remained unresolved, quietly travelling through the legal system for nearly three decades.
The passage of time itself reflected the difficulty of adjudicating questions where customary law, social change, and women’s rights intersect.
Before Justice M. Y. Eqbal: The Question Framed
When the appeal was finally heard in December 2008, it came before Justice M. Y. Eqbal of the Jharkhand High Court. Formally, the question was narrow: whether the courts below had erred in placing the burden on the challengers to disprove the custom of adoption by women.
Substantively, however, the issue was far wider. It asked whether Santhali women could act as legal persons within customary law, or whether they remained dependent figures with no independent agency.
Listening to Living Custom
Justice Eqbal approached the issue with care and restraint. Rather than assuming the content of custom, he sought to understand it. He examined settlement reports from the colonial and post-colonial periods, anthropological writings—particularly those of W. G. Archer—and oral evidence from members of the Santhali community.
These sources revealed a society that was undoubtedly patriarchal, yet not static. Adoption existed among the Santhals. Widows often stepped into the role of their deceased husbands. Customs had shifted over time in response to economic pressures and social needs.
Justice Eqbal recognised a crucial principle: custom is not frozen in time; it lives among people.
ALSO READ: Jharkhand HC@25: Lokayukta dispute became State’s first test of domicile politics
Evidence, Burden of Proof, and Judicial Discipline
A central contribution of Justice Eqbal’s judgment lay in his treatment of evidence and burden of proof. The defendants produced community witnesses, described customary ceremonies, relied on a registered adoption deed, and pointed to similar adoptions within Santhali society. The challengers, by contrast, relied largely on assertion.
Justice Eqbal held that when credible evidence of a custom is produced, the law cannot disregard it. The burden then lies on the person denying the custom to disprove its existence. Tradition, he emphasised, cannot defeat lived practice without proof.
This reasoning prevented women’s rights from being negated by unsupported claims of tradition
The Judgment: Thirty Years to Legal Recognition
Justice Eqbal dismissed the appeal and upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts. Nearly thirty years after the adoption had taken place, the law finally spoke with clarity: a Santhali widow could adopt a child, and such adoption was valid under customary law.
Though the judgment did not expressly declare gender equality, it achieved something substantial—it recognised the widow as a legal actor, capable of representing her deceased husband and acting for the continuity of the family.
Custom and the Constitution in Quiet Dialogue
Justice Eqbal did not reject the Santhal custom. Instead, he interpreted it in harmony with constitutional values of dignity, fairness, and justice, drawing upon the Supreme Court’s observations in Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar.
By doing so, he allowed customary law to evolve organically, without abrupt rupture, while ensuring that it did not operate as a tool of exclusion.
A Foundation for Later Jurisprudence
The reasoning in Narayan Soren v. Ranjan Murmu became the foundation for later decisions of the Jharkhand High Court. Subsequent benches extended these principles to recognise women’s rights beyond adoption—into leadership and inheritance.
Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh upheld a Santhali daughter’s right to inherit the post of Gram Pradhan.³ Justice Gautam Kumar Chaudhary affirmed the inheritance rights of Oraon women.⁴ Finally, in Ismail Hansda, Justice Anubha Rawat Chaudhary clearly held that Santhali women have the right to inherit property.⁵
These developments did not arise suddenly; they were built upon the jurisprudential groundwork laid by Justice Eqbal.
A Quiet Turning Point in the Court’s Journey
In the twenty-five-year journey of the Jharkhand High Court, Narayan Soren v. Ranjan Murmu stands as a quiet but enduring turning point. It demonstrates how careful judicial listening—to history, to community practice, and to constitutional conscience—can transform the law without noise or rupture.
Justice M. Y. Eqbal’s judgment did not announce a revolution. It listened. It respected. It allowed the law to grow. In doing so, it became a cornerstone in the evolving legal history of Santhali women’s rights.
