SC agrees to hear whether Sharia laws applicable to ex-Muslims
text_fields
The Supreme Court has agreed to delve into the issue of whether ex-Muslims should be governed by the Muslim Personal Law or the secular laws of the country in matters of succession. The apex court's decision comes in response to a writ petition filed by Safiya PM, the general secretary of an organization representing ex-Muslims in Kerala, according to The Indian Express.
Safiya's petition seeks a declaration that individuals who choose not to be governed by the Muslim Personal Law should have the option to be governed by the Indian Succession Act, 1925, in both intestate and testamentary succession matters. The plea highlights a crucial aspect of personal freedom and civil rights for individuals who have renounced their faith.
Initially, the bench, headed by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, appeared hesitant to entertain the petition, emphasizing that individuals can opt out of the Muslim Personal Law by making a declaration under Section 3 of The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937.
However, Safiya's counsel, Advocate Prashant Padmanabhan, argued that a void remains for individuals who do not make such a declaration, as the secular law does not automatically
The plea draws attention to the fundamental right to religion enshrined in Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, emphasizing that this right should encompass the freedom to believe or not to believe. It argues that individuals who choose to leave their faith should not face any disability or disqualification in matters of inheritance or other civil rights.
Safiya, described in the petition as a born Muslim woman to a non-practising Muslim father, finds herself in a unique predicament regarding the protection of her civil rights. Safiya wishes to assert her right to not be governed by the Muslim Personal Law. However, the absence of a provision within the law or rules to obtain such a declaration leaves her in a legal vacuum.
The plea underscores the necessity for judicial interpretation to address this gap in the statute, arguing that the absence of protection from the state renders the petitioner's fundamental rights under Article 25 meaningless. It highlights the need for clarity and safeguards to ensure that individuals who choose to leave their faith are not deprived of their civil rights.
