By
Jeremy D. Morley*
The Supreme Court of
India has rejected a petition seeking to ban Shariah courts in India, but it has
stressed that such courts have no legal powers over Muslims and that their
decisions cannot be enforced. Vishwa
Lochan Madan v. Union of India, July 7, 2014.
The petitioner alleged that the All India Muslim Personal Law Board was seeking to establish a parallel judicial system in India for the Muslim community comprised of “ulemas” which are bodies of Muslim scholars. Some such ulemas had allegedly issued “a galore of obnoxious fatwas” including one that ruled that a wife could no longer have relations with her husband because she had been raped by her father-in-law.
The petitioner alleged that the All India Muslim Personal Law Board was seeking to establish a parallel judicial system in India for the Muslim community comprised of “ulemas” which are bodies of Muslim scholars. Some such ulemas had allegedly issued “a galore of obnoxious fatwas” including one that ruled that a wife could no longer have relations with her husband because she had been raped by her father-in-law.
The Supreme Court ruled that the petition was misconceived
because the Shariah courts have no legal standing under India law and the
fatwas purportedly issued by such entities have no authority.
Specifically, the Supreme Court ruled that
“In fact, whatever may
be the status of Fatwa during Mogul or British Rule, it has no place in
independent India under our Constitutional scheme. It has
no legal sanction and can not be enforced by any legal
process either by the Dar-ul-Qaza issuing that or the person concerned
or for that
matter anybody. The person or the
body concerned may ignore it and it will not be necessary for anybody to
challenge it before any court of law.
It can simply be ignored. In case
any person or body tries to impose it, their act would be illegal. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner
that [certain ulemas] are running a parallel judicial system is misconceived.”
Thus, the Court
insisted that Islamic judges interpreting religious law could rule only when
individuals submitted voluntarily to them and that their decisions, or fatwas, are
not legally binding.
It should also be
noted that the various personal laws followed by India’s religious minorities
are an extremely sensitive political issue and that India’s new Hindu
nationalist government is committed to bringing in a common legal code for all
Indians.
*Jeremy Morley handles many
international family law matters between the United States and India, always
acting with local counsel as appropriate. He has provided expert witness testimony
as to India’s child custody laws.