In a landmark reminder of India’s constitutional supremacy, the recent Madras High Court ruling has reiterated a fundamental principle: no religious law or council can surpass the authority of the Indian legal system. This decision, rooted in the case of a Muslim couple whose contested divorce was facilitated by a Shariat Council, underscores an urgent and necessary shift. It is time for the 180 million Indian Muslims to progress towards modernity, distancing themselves from anachronistic interpretations and the conservative grip of bodies like the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB). Religious practices, however, revered, must align with constitutional mandates that uphold justice, equality, and individual rights, especially in sensitive personal matters like marriage and divorce.
The case in question involved a 2017 Shariat Council-issued divorce certificate, which the wife contested, prompting a legal battle that concluded with Justice G.R. Swaminathan’s unequivocal declaration: Shariat Councils are private, non-binding forums, not judicial authorities. They lack the legitimacy to issue divorce certificates or enforce actions affecting the lives of individuals under the shield of religious autonomy. This decision, while contentious among traditionalists, stands as a pivotal moment in the movement for Muslim women’s rights within the Indian legal framework.
The ruling illuminates the disproportionate emotional toll these extrajudicial decisions impose on women, with the Court acknowledging the psychological harm inflicted by unilateral actions and bigamy under Sharia laws. As Justice Swaminathan noted, the husband’s act of bigamy amounted to cruelty. The observation holds broader implications for Muslim women across India who endure unilateral talaq practices and polygamy in ways often dismissed by religious bodies.
ALSO READ: Ratan Tata: Example of selflessness of minorities – THE NEW INDIAN
India’s approach to secularism is unique; it does not sever religious influence entirely from the state but rather balances respect for religious freedoms with constitutional equality. The coexistence of personal laws for Muslims, Hindus, Christians, and others within a secular Constitution is a defining feature of Indian legal pluralism. While this system respects the diversity of beliefs and practices, it also imposes critical limitations. These personal laws must be compatible with constitutional protections and, above all, cannot violate fundamental rights. For decades, India’s judiciary has consistently emphasized this principle, reinforcing that no personal law stands above constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity.
The 1985 Shah Bano case stands as a defining moment in this history, where the Supreme Court asserted a Muslim woman’s right to maintenance under criminal law, despite contradictory interpretations within Muslim personal laws. This landmark case set a precedent, illustrating that religious interpretations yielding gender discrimination cannot supersede the Constitution. Similarly, the 2017 Triple Talaq judgment, which banned the practice of instant divorce, was another major ruling asserting that Muslim personal laws could not disregard constitutional rights. Such interventions have clarified that constitutional safeguards prevail in ensuring fairness and justice for all Indian citizens.
The role of dar ul qazas, or Sharia courts, provides insight into how religious bodies operate within India’s legal pluralism. These forums, though respected for their role in resolving intra-community disputes, lack enforceable authority. In 2005, the case of Vishwa Lochan Madan v. Union of India brought to light concerns about dar ul qazas functioning as “parallel judicial systems.” The Supreme Court, however, clarified that these forums are voluntary and non-binding, not posing a threat to the constitutional judiciary. They exist to complement state courts and are valuable for resolving religious issues, but their decisions must be voluntary and cannot contravene state law.
ALSO READ: Indian liberals zero; Pakistani liberals +1 – THE NEW INDIAN
The dual existence of state courts and dar ul qazas underscores the complex balance between secular and religious jurisdictions in India, where marital disputes may simultaneously involve religious and civil aspects. In such cases, religious forums may guide divorce proceedings on theological grounds, while state courts retain authority over matters like property division and child custody. This dynamic reflects an operational overlap, where religious customs are respected, but constitutional law remains paramount.
The contemporary shift towards secular, constitutional oversight in personal law matters signifies a broader call for reform and modernization. For too long, bodies like the AIMPLB have clung to outdated interpretations, resisting changes that would align personal laws with the progressive principles of the Indian Constitution. Archaic views and outdated provisions on marriage, divorce, adoption, and inheritance continue to govern the lives of millions, stifling the community under restrictive interpretations of Sharia and deterring them from progressive reforms that many other countries have already adopted.
The journey forward requires that Muslim personal laws embrace principles of gender equality, transparency, and constitutional harmony. The Shariat Act of 1937, governing marriage and inheritance, must operate within the Constitution’s framework, especially regarding gender equality and non-discrimination. Even Islamic laws of inheritance, which delineate specific shares for heirs, can be guided by constitutional standards without infringing upon religious tenets. This approach does not undermine the essence of religious customs but strengthens them by allowing them to evolve in a way that safeguards individuals’ rights.
ALSO READ: Of seditious election speeches – THE NEW INDIAN
The Indian legal system, with its foundational commitment to equality, respects the unique identities and practices of its diverse religious communities. However, it demands that all citizens, regardless of their faith, abide by the Constitution’s values of justice and non-discrimination. Recent court rulings remind us that the rights and dignity of Muslim women, too often sidelined in personal law matters, deserve the same protections as those guaranteed to all Indian women. While religious autonomy in personal matters is a cherished aspect of Indian secularism, it must adapt to ensure it protects rather than restricts.
This nuanced balance between personal laws and constitutional protections is precisely what the framers of the Constitution envisioned—a harmonious coexistence of diversity and uniform rights. The way forward lies in reform, transparency, and constitutional subservience, ensuring that the rights of Muslim women and the community as a whole are not compromised by outdated religious structures but supported by a legal system that values both faith and equality. This is the 21st-century approach needed for a progressive India, where justice is not confined by religious boundaries but empowered by constitutional values.