India's Supreme Court sets rules for Sharia courts
India's 150 million Muslims follow their own laws governing family life and other personal issues such as marriage and divorce, with Sharia courts used to rule on such matters and mediate in disagreements.
The top court said that Islamic judges, who interpret religious law, could only rule when individuals submitted voluntarily to them and their decisions, or fatwas, were not legally binding.
"Sharia courts are not sanctioned by law and there is no legality of fatwas in this country," CK Prasad said Monday as he read out the judgement from a two-judge bench.
The different personal laws followed by India's religious minorities are a sensitive political issue. The new Hindu nationalist government is committed to bringing in a common legal code for all.
Vishwa Lochan Madan, who petitioned the Supreme Court to disband Sharia courts, told AFP on Monday that his demand had been rejected.
"The Supreme Court observed that Sharia courts have no legal sanctity. But if people still want to approach these courts, it's their will," he said.
He filed his petition in 2005 and cited a case in which a woman was told to leave her husband and children and live with her father-in-law who had raped her.
"No religion is allowed to curb anyone's fundamental rights," the court added in its judgement while taking note of the case.
Qasim Rasool Niyazi, from the Muslim Personal Law Board, said the Supreme Court ruling vindicated his group's contention that Sharia courts were not a parallel judiciary.
They issue notices which are not legally binding, he explained. "It is just like an arbitration," he told the NDTV channel, adding that Islamic judges were required to follow the law of the land.
COMMENTS (18)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1725254039-0/Untitled-design-(24)1725254039-0-270x192.webp "foreign nationals including afghan citizens participating in pti protest interior minister")
1732449527-0/Express-Tribune-(4)1732449527-0-270x192.webp "pti protest newlyweds forced to take motorcycle ride amid roadblocks")
1732441230-0/BeFunk_§_]__-(49)1732441230-0.jpg "people have rejected pti s protest call ahsan iqbal")
1732436825-0/BeFunk_§_]__-(47)1732436825-0.jpg "bushra bibi gandapur exchange heated words over d chowk protest")
@Indian: Prohibition of intoxicating drinks is mentioned in directive principles of state policy (Art.47). Go and read it. Which party is demanding it? Ask your party to add it in their manifesto at least now on. You may want to know more of such directive principles.
@someone: Well brother your lack of legal knowledge certainly accounts for this strange comment. Firstly sharia courts have no legal standing therefore, the jurisdiction of civil and criminal courts cannot be questioned. See Civil courts were formed to settle disputes civil in nature, like divorce, land , contracts, etc etc. Civil courts gets its authority from civil procedure code. Now in matters of divorce and marriage, Personal law boards were created, so Muslim laws based on their religious belief were created to deal in matters of marriages, divorce, succession just like it does for Hindus( Read Hindu Marriage act, succession act etc) Now as regards Uniform Civil Code , I think it is a step in the right direction. PPL who say its wrong to impose UCC on muslims must be nuts, because just look at the kind of judgement thats comes out of MPLB. We need Muslim women to also have the right to divorce , get a proper respectable maintenance, and free from violence in Home. We need to bring greater liberty and equality to women either Hindu or muslim
@Lalit: Gandhian wish would have been "Sarva Dharma Sahishnuta"(equal empathy towards all religions) and Nehruvian would have been "Sarva Dharma Nirapekshata" (equal indifference towards all religions)!! Mercifully Mrs.Gandhi did not define "Secularism" when she inserted that word. What are we then? Indians are constitutionally built, as you say, for "Sarva Dharma Samabhav" (equal attitude towards all religions). Constitution, if it errs, does so in favour of religions of the Minorities & that is in the finest tradition of India. It appears paradoxical since special treatment to Minority religions would mean neither Equality nor Indifference. May be Empathy? This "favouritism" towards Minorities goes back to days of yore as evidenced in the 7th century Travelogues of Huen Tsang (Xuanzang) when a Hindu Harsh Vardhan ruled entire North Indian landmass and placed the Rights of Worship of Buddhists above that of even Brahmins despite attempts on his life by the latter right in the presence of the Guest. Indian style "Secular" credentials have been thus earned not merely by inserting a word or two in Preamble but by centuries of incredible ability of men like Ashok, Harsh, Akbar, Dara, Teg Bahadur & above all Gandhi to be Inclusive even at the cost of their lives. If left unchecked, present government, under the slogan of 'appeasement of none and justice to all' would like to alter the Constitution & go against that very Ethos of India. To my mind that means treason.That mustn't be allowed.
@Rakib: Uniform civil code is mentioned in directive principles of state policy. go and read it.
@Rakib nothing to disagree.....''sarva dharma sambhava'' does better justice with what Indian constitution stands for.
@Lalit: Nehru did the right thing by not confining the vast meaning to a tiny word. His daughter was less subtle.Queen Victoria in her Proclamation of 1858 has best described some attributes of Indian Secularism without using any such word. Anyway,sad part is among many Indians there is no uniform opinion about what those attributes are & quarrels go on. Indian umbrella-word "Secular" will be understood only by Indians. The word is imported & it poorly fits the meaning & it doesn't do full justice. It's the way the word "Religion" can't really explain what "Dharma" is.
@Rakib agreed ..in original constitution there is no mention of word secular,but the attributes of the Indian constitution are secular indeed.
(The constitution made by Nehru and Ambedkar states clearly that India is a secular state) vinsin
Incorrect. Original Constitution duly Adopted by Constituent Assembly on 26 November 1949, which came into effect on 26 January 1950 did not have the word "Secular" in it. By the time Indira Gandhi inserted the words "Secular Socialist" in the Constitution, by Amendment #42, both Nehru & Ambedkar were quite dead!
Hopefully the beginning of the end of nonsense. Apparently the case was about a daughter in law raped by her father was asked to move in with him and away from the children/ husband. Time to put nonsense away and force a common fair law for all citizens of the country. Rajiv Gandhi did the greatest disservice in the Shah Bano case denying a muslim woman alimony from her husband. Where are all those so called secularaists like Shabana azmi now? Unless muslim leaders come forward to take on this orthodoxy, such verdicts won't benefit the poor. The change will have to come from within aided by such no nonsense courts
@feroz people who want to solve their cases through sharia can go to such courts and solve their cases or follow fatwas its their personal choice, nobody (indian court) interferes. But if Muslim law board interferes and enforces fatwas-laws on muslims in cases where they did not ask or approached and issue fatwas judgements barring their freedom without their permission its violation of basic fundamental rights as per our constitution. He can approach Supreme Court in such cases and get justice. Nobody can force anybody in india to follow religious law if he doesn't want to be Sikhs,Hindus,Christians any. A person can be be secular or atheist. There was a case in which a indian Muslim couple were banned from adopting a baby and naming her/him after them. 2. Ivf baby was declared unislamic by darul uloom. Fatwa was issued. They went Supreme Court which ruled in couples favour. Nobody can deprive them the right of having a child or naming him. No enforcing law on people if they don't want to follow such board or knock thier doors for problem solving.
@pathan: "indian muslims are so lucky. god bless them."
Quoting from this report:
"He filed his petition in 2005 and cited a case in which a woman was told to leave her husband and children and live with her father-in-law who had raped her."
If the father in law has a child from the woman, will the child be step son/daughter of the divorced husband or brother/sister of the divorced husband? Will the divorced woman's children born to her divorced husband be her children or her grand children because her divorced husband becomes her step son after she divorces him and becomes his father's wife?
@vinsin: India is a pluralist society and uniform civil code is just impossible in near future. There are special laws to take care of inter-community or inter-religious marriages. If people from all communities agree to forgo their personal laws in favour of special laws then only it can be possible. In my opinion if people start thinking on these lines then also it will take at least 2-3 generations to bring in such acceptable laws. there is no uniformity within hindu laws and also within muslim laws and other religious laws. its not going to be easy.
This is such a bad decision by the court. Tomorrow any one can start a religion, make the religious book and start implementing the personal laws based on that. And guess what, this may even be legal by religious freedom clauses in constitution. India should be ruled by just one book and that is constitution.No other book should be allowed to interfere in state's affairs.
Since decisions of the Sharia Court are not binding, why will any serious litigant take his case to the Sharia Court ?
state and religion should be separate.
indian muslims are so lucky. god bless them.
A pragmatic and progressive judgement by the Supreme Court. By the way, no one gives a damn to fatwas of sharia courts but poor and illiterate people were harrassed by the decisions and fatwas of such courts.
The new Hindu nationalist government is committed to bringing in a common legal code for all. - This is wrong, it was decided in 1946 by congress and Jinnah demanded Pakistan. The constitution made by Nehru and Ambedkar states clearly that India is a secular state and UCC has to be implemented for it. India is still a religious state.