The Supreme Court on Tuesday examined a plea challenging provisions of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, raising the question whether Muslim women can be denied equal inheritance rights vis-à-vis Muslim men.
During the hearing, the Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Joymalya Bagchi engaged in an extensive discussion on whether the issue of succession under Muslim personal law could be tested on the touchstone of Article 14 (Right to Equality) and whether inheritance could be considered part of essential religious practice protected under the Constitution.
Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioners, argued that inheritance is purely a civil right and not a religious practice. Mr Bhushan contended that the Shariat law framework effectively allows Muslim women to receive half the share of men in inheritance, which he argued is discriminatory and unconstitutional.
“We cannot have a situation today where Muslim women do not get the same rights as Muslim men. This is a civil rights issue,” he argued.
The Bench noted that the challenge raises a complex constitutional question with far-reaching implications for personal laws in India. “This is an important question which needs to be examined from all angles,” the Court observed.
The judges also questioned what legal framework would govern succession if the 1937 Act were struck down. “If the 1937 Act goes, then what? What vacuum will be created and how will it be filled?” the Bench asked.
The Court pointed out that striking down a statutory recognition of personal law could have wide ramifications across inheritance regimes, including under other personal laws.
“This issue may have multifarious and manifold impact on laws of inheritance,” the Bench noted.
During the hearing, comparisons were drawn with landmark rulings such as Shayara Bano v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court struck down the practice of triple talaq as unconstitutional. However, the Bench indicated that invalidating legislation without clarifying the consequences or replacement framework could pose difficulties.
The Court also observed that some aspects of personal law reform may ultimately require legislative intervention, potentially through measures such as a Uniform Civil Code.
“Some of these issues may have to be left to the wisdom of the legislature,” the Bench said.
The petitioners were asked to file additional material addressing what legal regime would apply if the impugned provisions were struck down, including possible alternatives such as the application of the Indian Succession Act or judicial recognition of equal inheritance rights.
Petitioners are allowed to file additional submissions addressing the constitutional and legislative implications of the challenge.