Supreme Court Agrees To Consider Plea Seeking Declaration That Shariat Law Won't Apply To Non-Believer Muslim
The Supreme Court on Monday (April 29) issued notice on a writ petition seeking a declaration that a person who was born a Muslim, but ceased to be believer, would not be governed by the Shariat law.The petition was filed by a Kerala-based woman named Safiya PM, who stated that she was not a believer and hence should be governed by the Indian Succession Act 1925 with respect to...
The Supreme Court on Monday (April 29) issued notice on a writ petition seeking a declaration that a person who was born a Muslim, but ceased to be believer, would not be governed by the Shariat law.
The petition was filed by a Kerala-based woman named Safiya PM, who stated that she was not a believer and hence should be governed by the Indian Succession Act 1925 with respect to inheritance instead of the Muslim Personal Law. The petitioner is the General Secretary of an organization of named "Ex-Muslims of Kerala."
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, after elaborate discussions, decided to issue notice to the Union of India and the State of Kerala on the petition, terming it an "important issue." The bench requested the Attorney General for India to nominate a law officer who can assist the Court. The matter will be posted next in the second week of July 2024.
Initially, the bench expressed reservations at the petitioner's proposition that a non-believer won't be governed by Shariat Act. "The moment you are born as Muslim you are governed by the personal law. Your rights or entitlement are not governed by being a believer or non-believer," CJI Chandrachud told the petitioner's counsel Advocate Prashant Padmanabhan. The bench also wondered how can the Court give a declaration regarding the non-applicability of personal law to a person under Article 32 of the Constitution, when the petitioner has not challenged any statutory provision.
Padmanabhan submitted that as per the personal law, a Muslim person cannot bequeath more than 1/3rd of his properties by way of Will. He pointed out that the petitioner's father is also not a believer. The counsel submitted that Muslim women are entitled to only 1/3rd of the share of male heirs.
CJI pointed out that as per Section 3 of the Shariat Act, a person has to make a specific declaration to be governed by the Shariat law. He also pointed out that Section 58 of the Indian Succession Act makes a specific declaration that the Succession Act will not apply to Muslims. Therefore, a void may be created if a declaration as sought by the petitioner is granted. The bench also pointed out that the petitioner has not challenged Section 58 of the Indian Succession Act.
Padmanabhan stated that the petitioner was in a "peculiar situation." Her father cannot bequeath more than 1/3d of the property to her. The remaining 2/3rd will go to her brother who was suffering from Down's syndrome. The counsel further stated that the petitioner had a daughter. After the petitioner's death, the entire property will not go to her daughter as her father's brothers will also get a claim.
When the bench asked how can the Court give a declaration under Article 32, Padmanabhan replied that Article 25 of the Constitution gives the right to be a non-believer as well and the Court has wide powers to give such a declaration.
"You are born a Muslim. S. 58 of the Indian Succession Act said it would not apply to Muslims. Even if you don't make a declaration under Section 3 of the Sharia Act, there is no secular act on wills and legacies by Muslims. You don't have to seek that declaration because S.3 of the Shariat Act says unless you don't make a declaration, then you will not be governed by personal law. But there is still a void, because if you don't declare, then what will you be governed by?" CJI observed.
The petitioner's counsel replied that Section 58 is under examination in another petition filed by the Quran Sunnath Society in which the petitioner has also intervened.
Ultimately, the bench agreed to consider the matter. After the petitioner's counsel said that he would raise the grounds regarding Section 58, the bench granted liberty to amend the petition.
Case : Sufiya PM v Union of India W.P.(C) No. 135/2024