SC seeks Centre’s reply on PIL challenging muslim personal law provisions

The Supreme Court of India has issued a notice to the Centre on a public interest litigation challenging certain provisions of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 as discriminatory against Muslim women, particularly in matters of inheritance.

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi sought a response from the Union Ministry of Minority Affairs on the plea filed by Poulomi Pavini Shukla and the Nyaya Naari Foundation. The petition has been argued by senior advocate Prashant Bhushan.

The PIL primarily challenges the constitutional validity of provisions governing succession under the 1937 Act, especially Section 2, which applies Shariat law to inheritance and property distribution. The petition contends that these rules result in unequal shares for women, often granting them half or less than their male counterparts.

Invoking constitutional guarantees under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, Article 15 of the Indian Constitution and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, the plea argues that such provisions are manifestly discriminatory. It further challenges their protection under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, asserting that inheritance is a civil matter and not an essential religious practice.

During the hearing, the bench initially expressed reluctance, noting that striking down or modifying statutory provisions could amount to judicial legislation. However, it agreed to examine the issue after submissions that the law violates fundamental rights. The court also emphasised the need for affected Muslim women to be part of the proceedings.

The petitioners have sought a declaration that the discriminatory provisions be struck down and have suggested the application of gender-neutral laws such as the Indian Succession Act, 1925 to ensure equality. They have also urged the court to direct the government to undertake legislative reforms.

The bench noted the broader constitutional context, observing that a Uniform Civil Code remains a “constitutional ambition,” but cautioned against overstepping into the legislative domain. It also referred to the precedent in State of Bombay vs Narasu Appa Mali (1951), which held that personal laws may not fall within the scope of laws challengeable under fundamental rights provisions.

At the same time, the petitioners relied on the ruling in Shayara Bano vs Union of India (2017) to argue that personal law practices can be subject to constitutional scrutiny.

Terming the issue significant, the court has posted the matter for further hearing after four weeks.