The Chief Justice’s remarks came during the hearing of a petition filed by Safiya P.M., a woman from Kerala. Safiya was born into a Muslim family but no longer follows Islam. She wants to be governed by the Indian Succession Act instead of Sharia law.
NEW DELHI: On Tuesday, January 28, 2025, Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna made an important statement regarding inheritance laws in India. He said that every person should have the freedom to stop following a religion and choose to be governed by secular inheritance laws. This right should apply to people of all religions equally.
Petition by Kerala Woman Seeking Secular Inheritance Laws
The Chief Justice’s remarks came during the hearing of a petition filed by Safiya P.M., a woman from Kerala. Safiya was born into a Muslim family but no longer follows Islam. She wants to be governed by the Indian Succession Act instead of Sharia law.
The case was heard by a Supreme Court Bench led by Chief Justice Khanna, along with Justices Sanjay Kumar and K.V. Viswanathan.
The Chief Justice said, “If it is to apply to one faith, it must apply to all faiths.”
Inheritance Rights and Religious Laws
During the hearing, Chief Justice Khanna mentioned that under the Hindu Succession Act, a person who converts from Hinduism loses their right to inherit property.
He said, “Under the Hindu Succession Act, if you convert, your inheritance is taken away… if you convert, you lose your right of inheritance.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Indian government, responded that a person could still receive property through a Will, even if religious inheritance laws applied. However, Chief Justice Khanna pointed out that the issue also involved cases of intestate succession (when a person dies without a Will) and Joint Hindu Family property.
Solicitor General Mehta admitted that the petition raised an important legal question.
He requested time for the Central government to file a detailed reply. “Give time for response,” he said.
Chief Justice Khanna noted that if the petition succeeded, government forms might need changes.
He said, “Where [in a form] you have to mention your religion, the option not to mention one’s religion must be there or it ought to be waivable.”
Justice Viswanathan added that such an option could be considered a “private right.”
Advocate Prashant Padmanabhan, representing Safiya, explained that under Muslim law, she would inherit only one-third of her father’s property. He said that she also needed financial security to take care of her autistic brother.
Chief Justice Khanna then raised a question about whether Safiya’s father, who follows Muslim law, could legally leave his entire property to her. Mr. Padmanabhan argued that leaving a religion should not result in losing inheritance or other civil rights. He emphasized that secularism in India means treating all religions equally and giving every person the freedom to believe or not believe in a religion.
The petition stated, “Persons who do not want to be governed by the Muslim Personal Law must be allowed to be governed by the secular law of the country, viz, the Indian Succession Act, 1925 both in the case of intestate and testamentary succession.”
Safiya, who is the General Secretary of ‘Ex-Muslims of Kerala,’ explained that when a person leaves Islam, they are removed from the community and lose their right to inherit property from their family.
Her petition requested a legal declaration that she should not be governed by Muslim Personal Law for inheritance and other civil matters.
“The petitioner wishes to get a declaration that she shall not be governed by Muslim Personal Law for any of the matters listed in Sections 2 or 3 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937… There is a clear vacuum in the statute which can be plugged by judicial interpretation.”
ALSO READ: Do Daughters Have Equal Property Right? : Hindu Succession Act, 1956
The petition also pointed out that without legal changes, even if Safiya obtained a ‘no-religion, no-caste certificate,’ she would still not have any inheritance rights. This situation violates Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, which protects an individual’s right to believe or not believe in any religion.
Mr. Padmanabhan argued, “This state of affairs was a direct violation of the fundamental right to believe (or not to believe) in a religion under Article 25 of the Constitution.”
Case Title: Safiya P.M. v. Union of India & Anr. [Writ Petition (Civil) No.135/2024]
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
