The Supreme Court has decided to evaluate a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that questions certain provisions of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act of 1937. This decision was made during a session on Thursday, where Chief Justice Surya Kant, alongside Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Panchol, raised concerns about the extent of judicial intervention in personal laws. The bench has issued a notice to the Union Ministry of Minority Affairs, requesting a response to the allegations presented by the petitioner, a non-Muslim individual named Poulomi Pavini Shukla, represented by the Nyaya Naari Foundation.

At the beginning of the hearing, the Chief Justice appeared cautious, indicating that any changes to the existing Shariat provisions might be interpreted as judicial legislation. He stressed that the court’s role should not extend to amending laws, remarking that substituting personal laws with an Indian Succession Act could encroach upon the legislative domain of Parliament.

Despite these concerns, the Supreme Court agreed to consider the case further following arguments from senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, who argued that some of the provisions violate women’s rights to equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. The Chief Justice described the establishment of a uniform civil code as a “constitutional ambition,” clarifying that such efforts should not be perceived through the lens of religion.

Petitioner Highlights Gender Discrimination in Inheritance Rights

During the proceedings, the bench scrutinised the standing of the PIL, questioning whether a non-Muslim could file such a petition. The Chief Justice suggested that the proceedings should include women who are directly affected by these laws. He directed Bhushan to present actual cases of women impacted by the Shariat law as party intervenors to ensure that the proceedings genuinely reflect the issues at hand.

Bhushan noted that several Muslim organisations have expressed their support for the petition, reinforcing the view that the inheritance rights of Muslim women require protection. He contended that the 1937 Act creates a discriminatory framework, leading to situations where women inherit only half, or even less, than their male counterparts. Emphasising the seriousness of the matter, Bhushan described this inequality as a violation of Article 14.

He further asserted that such provisions should not be treated as essential religious practices protected under Article 25, adding that the rights concerning self-acquired property should not be curtailed by the Shariat Act. The plea insists that individuals should have the freedom to will their property as per their wishes.

Judiciary’s Role in Social Reform Discussed

Justice Bagchi remarked that any required reformation should ideally originate from within the community and highlighted that constitutional values must guide these transformations. Bhushan, however, argued that laws related to Hindu practices are not completely uniform, citing existing customs and local traditions as examples. He stressed that any proposal for a uniform civil code should integrate liberal elements from various religions that uphold the rights of all individuals.

As the discussion continued, concerns about judicial overreach were raised. Justice Bagchi questioned whether it was within the court’s jurisdiction to enact social reforms. In response, Bhushan maintained that the Supreme Court does possess the authority to annul discriminatory laws. The bench indicated that it would approach the matter with caution, fully aware of its constitutional responsibilities and the boundaries of its intervention.

Long or Short, get news the way you like. No ads. No redirections. Download Newspin and Stay Alert, The CSR Journal Mobile app, for fast, crisp, clean updates!

App Store –  https://apps.apple.com/in/app/newspin/id6746449540 

Google Play Store – https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.inventifweb.newspin&pcampaignid=web_share