Written by Janhavi Gupta
2nd year BSCLLB (Hons) student at
National Law Institute University, Bhopal,
November 2025
Introduction
A woman from Himachal Pradesh attracted media attention recently when she married two brothers which led to renewed discussions about the old practice of polyandry in that region.[1] While this might seem an extraordinary marriage to those in modern society, polyandry is not merely a personal choice for many of the tribal communities from the Himalayan region including the Hattis of Himachal Pradesh.[2] The presented situation also leads us to a much bigger legal and constitutional question: How do we square the customary law of tribal groups with the codified law of India?
Marriage in India has always been influenced by a delicate balance among different religious customs, codified laws, and changing social practices. The primary legislative document that governs marriages between Hindus is the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955,[3] which includes monogamy as a central element to the validity of that marriage.[4] However, Section 2(2) of the statute indicates that members of Scheduled Tribes are explicitly not included unless there is a notification to that effect from the Central Government.[5] This exemption has created a rather unique legal vacuum for groups like the Hattis who have only recently been acknowledged as a Scheduled Tribe but have always carried on the practice of fraternal polyandry.[6] As a result, marriages that are socially legitimate within the community remain outside the scope of statutory recognition.
This blog examines the tension between the cultural legitimacy of the practice of polyandry amongst the Hatti community and the absence of a formal legal framework. It looks at the clash of customary traditions with enacted law in particular the Hindu Marriage Act and the constitutional issue of having to balance both cultural legitimacy and gender equality. By looking at the cultural, social and legal angles of this debate, this blog attempts to suggest a path forward that does not erase tradition but in fact offers a regulated path forward that respects the rights of women and children whilst allowing the community to maintain their cultural traditions.
The Hatti Tradition: Culture and Custom
The Hatti tradition of polyandry is firmly rooted in cultural, social, and economic contexts. The community’s name, Hatti, is derived from the word ‘haat’ that means village market, and exemplifies the socio-economic life of the community being tightly-knit.[7] Historically, brothers would marry a wife in common; this practice was not seen as immoral, of a sexual nature, nor exotic, but a necessary adjustment to the nature of geography and economic lifestyle of the region.
In a region with scarce arable land, polyandry provided a means of preventing land from being further divided as well as keeping property intact. Families were maintained as brothers were obliged to remain in a family household; otherwise its members became separate nuclear families.[8] In addition, the tradition served as an obvious avenue of population control in a low-resource setting. Cultural legitimacy is reinforced through allusions to the Mahabharata, where Draupadi is established as the shared wife of the Pandavas the religious justification for whether the practice was acceptable within the community.
Even with the influences of education, migration, and the exposure to dominant norms of monogamy, together with the practices of some monogamous neighbouring communities, polyandry still exists in rural Hatti areas. This existence is the result of not only the economic aspect but also the identity aspect within this community. After receiving their Scheduled Tribe status, many Hatti regard polyandry’s existence as a matter of cultural survival and uniqueness.
The Legal Grey Zone
Although polyandry is socially acceptable within Hatti culture, the lack of statutory framework gives rise to serious legal problems. The absence of application of the Hindu Marriage Act means that those marriages are effectively outside the realm of codified law. As a result, the women involved in polyandry have no access to statutory remedies which include divorce, judicial separation, maintenance or inheritance rights. Their position relies entirely on customary norms which are socially binding but provide no specific recognition of their rights, fairness or gender justice.
Children born from polyandrous marriages also have a sense of ambiguity regarding legitimacy and inheritance. The Hindu Marriage Act[9] and Hindu Succession Act[10] do not cover property rights for Scheduled Tribes. Children born from polyandrous communities may also experience difficulties in property succession, identity documents, and/or benefits that need to establish paternity. Establishing legal fatherhood can add increased complexities in the polyandrous environment.
Even in criminal law, the position remains uncertain. Bigamy is punishable under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code but its applicability to Scheduled Tribes has been limited by judicial interpretation.[11] In Dr. Surajmani Stella Kujur v. Durga Charan Hansdah (2001), the Supreme Court clarified that for members of Scheduled Tribes, the prosecution must prove that the relevant custom itself renders polyandry void since the Hindu Marriage Act does not automatically apply.[12]
The Constitutional Dilemma
The legal uncertainty surrounding polyandry in the Hatti community raises questions of a more serious constitutional dilemma; balancing the desire to preserve culture against the demands of gender equality. Article 29 of the Constitution grants every community the right to preserve its unique culture, which includes recognition of customs in marriage, including polyandry.[13] At the same time, Articles 14, 15 and 21 guarantee equality of status and of opportunity, protection from discrimination, and the right to dignity and personal freedom.
The judiciary has stressed time and again, although customs matter, they cannot supplant fundamental rights. The Supreme Court, in Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017), struck down instant triple talaq on the grounds that customs could not undermine women’s rights to dignity and equality.[14] The Supreme Court, in Labishwar Manjhi v. Pran Manjhi (2000), noted that tribal customs may apply unless the community has become sufficiently assimilated into Hindu personal law.[15] These cases demonstrate the judiciary’s attempts to reconcile the coexistence of customary law with the larger text of constitutional morality.
The Way Forward
The path forward is not to outright ban polyandry because that would be an attempt to erase culture. The answer instead lies in regulated recognition. The State needs to begin the work of codifying tribal customs in accordance with constitutional guarantees of gender justice and equality. This codification would ensure that women married in polyandrous unions have enforceable rights to property, succession, and maintenance, and that children from these unions are entitled to legitimacy.
The Special Marriage Act of 1954 provides a secular manner for individuals who want to transcend customary practices while continuing to be protected under the law.[16] To give real individuals meaningful choice, we need to minimize barriers for adopting this framework in tribal areas. In addition to developing legal pathways, it is also critical to work with the community and raise awareness in the community so that every change is enforced by the community internally rather than externally.
Conclusion
The Hatti system of polyandry is one of the most fascinating points of intersection between law, culture, and social survival in India. It shows the way communities accommodate customary practices to challenging economic and social conditions, but that accommodation can lead to complications when viewed under the lens of multi-dimensional and modern law. While cultural preservation must be regarded as an important constitutional value, it must not be allowed to maintain or sustain practices that undermine and violate the rights of women and children to basic equality under law.
India faces the task of achieving a balance that acknowledges the cultural identity of tribal communities, while at the same time respecting the normative demands of constitutional values. The solution is to develop a moderated recognition process that safeguards legal inquiries, appreciates groups of vulnerable status, and sustains cultural diversity. This will allow the law to function as a mirror of the spirit of pluralism demanded by the laws of a just and diverse society.
[1] Aishwarya Khosla, ‘One bride, two grooms: The story of Himachal’s Hattis and the tradition of polyandry’ (The Indian Express, 4 August 2025) <https://chatgpt.com/c/68e7c474-4744-8322-a315-b2f639aac07c> accessed 16th September 2025.
[2]TNN, ‘2 brothers, 1 bride: Hatti youth revive polyandry in HP’ (Times of India, 21 July 2025) <https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/2-brothers-1-bride-hatti-youth-revive-polyandry-in-hp/articleshow/122801604.cms?utm_source=chatgpt.com >accessed 16th September 2025.
[3] Hindu Marriage Act 1955 <https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/1560/1/A1955-25.pdf> accessed 17th September 2025.
[4] Hindu Marriage Act 1955, s 5.
[5] Hindu Marriage Act 1955, s 2(2).
[6] TNN, ‘Himachal Pradesh grants ST status to Hattee community in Sirmaur district’ (Times of India, 2 January 2024) <https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/shimla/himachal-pradesh-grants-st-status-to-hattee-community-in-sirmaur-district/articleshow/106464344.cms> accessed 19th September 2025.
[7] Vivek, ‘Hatti Tribe, State, Population, Economy, Latest News’ (Vajiram & Ravi, 22 July 2025) <https://vajiramandravi.com/current-affairs/hatti/> accessed 20th September 2025.
[8] ‘Keeping landholdings undivided family intact key reason for prevalence of polyandry in Himachal society’ (Wire Update, The Week, 22 July 2025) <https://www.theweek.in/wire-updates/national/2025/07/22/des72-hp-polyandry.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com> accessed 20th September 2025.
[9] Hindu Marriage Act 1955 <https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/1560/1/A1955-25.pdf> accessed 21st September 2025.
[10] Hindu Succession Act 1956 <https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/1713/1/AAA1956suc___30.pdf> accessed 21st September 2025.
[11] Indian Penal Code 1860, s 494.
[12] Dr Surajmani Stella Kujur v Durga Charan Hansdah, AIR 2001 SC 938.
[13] Constitution of India, art 29.
[14] Shayara Bano v Union of India, AIR 2017 SC 4609, (2017) 9 SCC 1.
[15] Labishwar Manjhi v Pran Manjhi, (2000) 8 SCC 587.
[16] Special Marriage Act 1954 < special_marriage_act.pdf> accessed 21st September 2025.
