Today, On 28th January, The Supreme Court asked the Centre to clarify its position regarding a woman’s request to be governed by succession law instead of the Shariat law. The woman sought to be governed by civil law for inheritance matters.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court requested the Centre’s response on a plea filed by a Muslim woman seeking to be governed by Indian succession laws instead of Shariat.
The plea, submitted by Safiya P M, general secretary of “Ex-Muslims of Kerala” from Alappuzha, was presented before a bench consisting of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and K.V. Viswanathan.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, noted that the plea raises an interesting issue.
He stated,
“The petitioner lady is a born Muslim. She says she does not believe in Shariat and considers it a regressive law,”
The bench observed,
“This will run across faith. You will have to file a counter affidavit.”
Mehta requested three weeks to gather instructions and submit a counter affidavit, which the bench extended to four weeks, scheduling the matter for a hearing in the week beginning May 5.
On April 29 of the previous year, the apex court had sought responses from both the Centre and the Kerala government regarding this plea. Safiya argued that although she has not formally renounced Islam, she identifies as a non-believer and wishes to exercise her fundamental right to religion under Article 25, which she believes should encompass “the right not to believe.”
She also sought a declaration that individuals wishing to opt out of Muslim personal law should be permitted to be governed by the secular law of the country specifically, the Indian Succession Act of 1925 for both intestate and testamentary succession.
In her petition, filed through advocate Prashant Padmanabhan, Safiya highlighted that under Shariat laws, Muslim women are entitled to a one-third share of property.
The lawyer argued that a court declaration stating the petitioner is not governed by Muslim personal law is essential; otherwise, her father would not be able to bequeath more than one-third of his property to her.
The Supreme Court had previously allowed Safiya to amend her petition to challenge the Indian succession law and other provisions that exclude Muslims.
The plea stated,
“The fundamental right to religion under Article 25 of the Constitution must include the right to believe or not to believe, as per the judgment in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (Sabarimala case),”
It emphasized that to give meaning to that right, individuals who leave their faith should not face any disabilities or disqualifications regarding inheritance or other civil rights.
Highlighting the broader implications across the country, the plea called for judicial intervention, asserting that while the ongoing case in the Supreme Court pertained to all Muslim women, this specific plea addressed those born Muslim who wish to depart from the religion.
Also Read: [Shariat Showdown] Kerala HC Evaluates Handshakes Between Muslim Women and Men
The plea argued,
“As per Sharia law, a person who leaves her faith in Islam will be ousted from her community and will not be entitled to any inheritance rights in her parental property,”
Safiya expressed concern over how the law would affect her lineal descendant, her only daughter, if she officially renounced her religion.
She sought a declaration that Muslim personal law should not govern her in matters specified in Sections 2 or 3 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, stating,
“There is no provision in the Act or the rules that allows her to obtain such a certificate.”
The plea highlighted a “clear vacuum” in the statute that could be addressed through judicial interpretation. It pointed out that currently, the petitioner would not be governed by the secular laws of the country, such as the Indian Succession Act, even if she officially received a no-religion, no-caste certificate from any authority.
The plea concluded,
“The absence of state protection rendered the fundamental rights under Article 25 to practice or not practice religion meaningless”