Bench:
Justice A.M. Ahmadi (CJI), Justice Sujata V. Manohar, and Justice K. Venkataswami
Appellant:
Ahmedabad women action group
Respondent:
Union of India
Issues
1. Whether the Court has the authority to meddle in the issue of the unification of Personal Laws or not?
Facts of the Case
1. Three Writ Petitions have been recorded for this situation as Public Interest Litigations looking to challenge different parts of Personal Laws.
2. Muslim law permits Muslim men to have four relationships, alongside the option to separate, under the idea of Talaq, whereby, the husband has the authority to separate by the expression of the term 'Talaq', without judicial methods, and this may occur without the women’s consent.
Appellant’s Contention
1. To pronounce Muslim Personal Law which permits polygamy as void as infringing Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.
2. To pronounce Muslim Personal Law which empowers a Muslim male to give one-sided Talaq to his wife without her assent and resort to the judicial cycle of courts as void, insulting Articles 13, 14, and 15 of the Constitution.
3. To proclaim that the simple fact that a Muslim husband takes more than one wife is a demonstration of cruelty inside the significance of Clause VIII of Section 2 of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act. 1939.
4. To announce that the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 is void as encroaching Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.
5. To further announce that the arrangements of Sunni and Shia laws of legacy which discriminate females in their share when contrasted with the share of men of a similar status be void as discriminate females just on the ground of sex.
Respondent’s Contention
1. It would be inadvisable and off base to feel that all laws must be made consistently relevant to all individuals in one go.
2. The Legislature is comprised of the chosen representatives of individuals. They are liable for the welfare of the State and it is for them to set out the policy that the State should seek after. Subsequently, it is for them to figure out what legislation to set up on the statute book to propel the welfare of the State.
Judgment
The Supreme Court didn't take comprehension and saw that the issues brought up include issues of state strategy with which the Judiciary doesn't have any concern. The cure lies with the Legislature and not the courts.
Relevant Paragraphs
1. Para 3:For the Court, the presiding judge, Venkataswami J. first commented that: "… these Writ Petitions don't deserve removal on merits since the arguments progressed before we completely include issues of State strategies which the Court won't usually have any concern. Further, we find that when comparable attempts were made, obviously by others, on prior events this Court (Maharishi Avadhesh v. Association of India, 1994) held that the cure lies elsewhere and not by knocking at the doors of the courts."
2. In connection to the scope of laws assaulted by the petitions, he felt that it is off base to believe that all laws must be made consistently relevant to all individuals in one go, rather than growing continuously after some time to fulfill the needs of the Constitution. This was especially so in the circumstance where a wide scope of laws had been inactivity for a long time before the Constitution being implemented.
3. The Court felt that various religions with long verifiable foundations could be viewed as various classes under the law and the Constitution permits, to a certain extent, for their varying general set of laws: "the two Muslims and the Hindus in this nation have their strict writings and which exemplify their unmistakable development and which are hued by their particular foundations. Article 44 perceives independent and unmistakable personal laws since it sets down as a mandate to be accomplished that inside a quantifiable time India ought to appreciate the advantage of a typical uniform Civil Code appropriate to every one of its residents regardless of race or religion."
4. Para 8:He cited Gajendragadkar J. in a previous case (State of Bombay v. Narasu Appa Mali, AIR 1952 Bombay 84) who set out that: "The Constitution of India itself perceives the presence of these personal laws in wording when it manages the subject falling under personal law in item 5 in the Concurrent List. This item manages matters in regard of which parties in judicial procedures were preceding the commencement of this Constitution subject to their law … because, as I would see it, the designers of the Constitution needed to leave the personal laws outside the ambit of Part III of the Constitution. They probably know that these personal laws should have been transformed in numerous material specifics and truth be told they needed to cancel these diverse personal laws and to develop one regular code. However, they didn't wish that the arrangements of the personal laws ought to be tested because of the fundamental rights ensured in Part III of the constitution."
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
