The Supreme Court on April 29 sought the Union Government’s response to a petition filed by a Kerala-based woman, who said she, though born a Muslim, is now a non-believer, and should be governed by the secular statutes rather than the Sharia law.
Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, heading a three-judge Bench, said P.M. Safiya, a resident of Alappuzha district and represented by advocte Prashant Padmanabhan, has raised an “important issue”. The court issued formal notices to the Union Government and the State of Kerala. The case was posted for detailed hearing in July.
Mr. Padmanabhan submitted that the Supreme Court has already underscored the “fundamental postulate of secularism which treats all religions on an even platform and allows to each individual the fullest liberty to believe or not to believe”.
To realise the full meaning of what the Supreme Court intended, Mr. Padmanabhan submitted that a person who leaves her faith should not incur any disability or a disqualification in matters of inheritance or other important civil rights.
“Persons who do not want to be governed by the Muslim Personal Law must be allowed 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,” the petition said.
Ms. Safiya, who is general secretary of ‘Ex-Muslims of Kerala’, said that once she leaves her faith in Islam, she will be ousted from her community and is not entitled to any inheritance right in her parental property.
“The petitioner wishes to get a declaration that she shall 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 there is no provision either in the Act or in the Rules wherein she can obtain such a certificate. There is a clear vacuum in the statute which can be plugged by judicial interpretation,” the petition noted.
It noted that the legal vacuum would leave the petitioner with no recourse to succeed to her parental property even if she officially got a no-religion, no-caste certificate from an authority. This state of affairs was a direct violation of the fundamental right to believe (or not to believe) in a religion under Article 25 of the Constitution, Mr. Padmanabhan argued.
