Supreme Court Seeks Tripura & TTAADC Response To PIL Challenging Provision Of Customary Law

KanoonHQ Legal Gazette · AI-generated brief from the source linked below. How briefs are made

Published 26 October 2026

Case: Madhumita Bhattacharya v. State of Tripura and Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana
Statutes: Jamatia Customary Law Act, 2017 — s.143
Constitution of India — s.Sixth Schedule
Source: Verdictum

Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF)

The Supreme Court, in Madhumita Bhattacharya v. State of Tripura and Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council, sought responses from the Tripura government and the TTAADC on a PIL challenging Section 143 of the Jamatia Customary Law Act, 2017. The provision allows financial penalties for enticement and rape, allegedly enabling accused to evade formal legal consequences.

Ratio Decidendi · Legal Principle Established

The Supreme Court has issued notice to the State and TTAADC on a Public Interest Litigation challenging the constitutional validity of a customary law provision that permits financial penalties for enticement and rape, thereby potentially undermining formal legal processes.

Practice & Procedural Impact for Advocates

Advocates should monitor the outcome of this PIL, as it may impact the interplay between customary laws and the Indian Penal Code/Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, particularly concerning offences like rape. Litigants in tribal areas may see changes in how customary dispute resolution mechanisms are viewed in relation to constitutional rights.

Key Legal Takeaways

1PIL challenges Section 143 of the Jamatia Customary Law Act, 2017.
2The provision allows financial penalties for enticement and rape.
3Supreme Court has sought responses from Tripura government and TTAADC.

The Legal Issue Madhumita Bhattacharya filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the Supreme Court of India, challenging the constitutional validity of Section 143 of the Jamatia Customary Law Act, 2017. This provision addresses financial punishment for the enticement and rape of a woman, allegedly allowing accused individuals in rape-related cases to escape with financial penalties under the customary adjudication mechanism. The petitioner, through Advocate Shoumendu Mukherji, sought a direction declaring this provision ultra vires the Constitution and the production of relevant records concerning the enactment of the 2017 law.

Court's Reasoning A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana considered the PIL. The court did not issue a final ruling but sought responses from the Tripura government and the Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council (TTAADC). The 2017 law was passed by the TTAADC under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution to codify traditional customs and dispute-resolution mechanisms of the Jamatia community. The challenge centers on whether a customary law provision that allows financial penalties for serious offences like rape aligns with constitutional principles and the general criminal law of the land.

What Follows The Supreme Court has issued notice to the State of Tripura and the TTAADC, directing them to file their responses to the PIL. The bench also tagged this petition with a pending matter, indicating that the issues raised may be considered alongside similar cases. The outcome will determine the constitutional validity of Section 143 of the Jamatia Customary Law Act, 2017, and potentially clarify the limits of customary law in tribal areas, particularly concerning fundamental rights and criminal justice.