The Supreme Court of India issued notifications to the Kerala State and Union governments on Monday (April 29th) while hearing a writ suit seeking a ruling that a person born a Muslim but ceased to be a believer is not subject to Shariat law. After lengthy arguments, the bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra issued notices on the plea, describing it as an “important issue.”
As reported earlier, the bench requested that the Attorney General of India appoint a legal officer to assist the Court. The next hearing on this matter will take place during the second week of July 2024.
The writ case was filed by Safiya PM, a Kerala-based woman who serves as the general secretary of an organization of Kerala ex-Muslims. In her letter, Safiya proposes a “declaration that persons who do not want to be regulated by the Muslim Personal Law must have the right to be governed by the secular law of the country, viz, the Indian Succession Act, 1925 both in the case of intestate and testamentary succession”.
Initially, the bench was hesitant to hear the petition, citing the rationale that a non-believer would not be subject to the Shariat Act. Responding to the petitioner’s counsel Advocate Prashant Padmanabhan, CJI Chandrachud said, “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.”
The court further questioned how the Court could issue a statement stating that personal law does not apply to a person under Article 32 of the Constitution when the petitioner had not challenged any statutory provision.
During the arguments, the CJI emphasized the requirements of Section 3 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act of 1937. He stated that a person will not be controlled by the Act until they clearly declare so under this clause.
“You don’t have to seek that declaration. Because Section 3 of the Shariat Act says that unless you make a declaration, you will not be governed by the provisions of the personal law in the matter of wills, adoptions, and legacies. So if you don’t make a declaration, your father doesn’t make a declaration, they are not governed by the personal law,” the CJI noted.
However, the court recognized an issue because Section 58 of the Indian Succession Act expressly states that the Succession Act does not apply to Muslims. Nonetheless, the bench observed that the petitioner did not contest Section 58 of the Indian Succession Act.
Highlighting the existence of a legal void in such instances, CJI D Y Chandrachud declared, “There is an issue. Because if there is no proclamation, it is still void because secular law does not apply. When we first started reading it, we wondered what type of petition this is. This is a crucial point. We will issue a notice.”
While the court has decided to hear the petition filed by the ex-Muslim woman it is important to learn why the matter is being pressed so much to be heard and what the Muslim law says about the ex-Muslims.
How does Islamic law treat ex-Muslims?
As per the Islamic law, when a Muslim-born individual becomes a disbeliever of the religion, it is referred to as apostasy in Islam. Apostasy is identified when any Muslim individual declares a clear statement showing disbelief in Islam if he/she does something that implies disbelief in the religion.
Apostasy can be categorized into four types: apostasy in beliefs, words, actions, and omission. Beliefs include associating others with Allah, denying his existence, insulting Allah or the Messenger, disrespecting the Quran, prostrating idols, or not following Islam. Omissions, such as not following Islamic rituals also signify disbelief.
As per Islamic law, any individual who is a Muslim but is found showing disbelief in Islam is to be executed. The evidence of this punishment lies in the Al-Bukhari hadith in which the Prophet says, “Whoever changes his religion, execute him.” (Narrated by al-Bukhari, 2794).
“It is not permissible to shed the blood of a Muslim who bears witness that there is no god except Allah and that I am His Messenger, except in one of three cases: a soul for a soul (murder); a married man who commits adultery; and one who leaves his religion and splits from the jama’ah (main group of Muslims,” the Prophet says. (Narrated by al-Bukhari, 6878; Muslim, 1676)
However, as per the plea filed by the ex-Muslim woman in the given case, the person who leaves his/her faith in Islam, will be ousted from her community and thereafter she is not entitled to any inheritance right in her parental property.
The petitioner sought a declaration that she would not be governed by Muslim Personal Law for any of the matters listed in Sections 2 or 3 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, but as per the reports, there is no provision in the Act or the Rules for her to obtain such a certificate.
The petitioner meanwhile also claimed that her valuable fundamental rights under Article 25 would be rendered useless by the lack of such protection from the state. The court has termed the issue as important and has said that notice will be issued in the given case.
Conclusion
The case is expected to have wider ramifications. At a time when a lot of present-generation Muslims are renouncing their faith, and the union government is keen to bring a Uniform Civil Code, the SC has taken up a controversial issue that may have wide-scale implications and may face vehement opposition from fundamentalist Muslim organisations. As seen in other cases of civil rights, like the Shah Bano case and Triple Talaq laws, the male-dominated fundamentalist Muslim lobby does not like to cede an inch when it comes to Muslim Personal Laws.
Many Muslim leaders and organisations, even so-called ‘progressive’ politicians have declared that they will not allow the Uniform Civil Code and will bat for the continuation of Muslim Personal Laws in India.
