prasad1
Active member
The Supreme Court’s judgment on Monday, ruling that Shariat courts and fatwas that are injurious to individuals’ fundamental rights are illegal, has sparked a furore among the more conservative sections of Muslims in India, intensifying the debate whether systems of jurisprudence in a democracy can coexist with religion-based Quranic sanctions.
Within no time of the judgment being delivered, several Muslim social organisations expectedly raised objections. Their anxieties notwithstanding, the apex court judgment will inevitably lead to – especially when a powerful BJP-led coalition is at the helm of affairs at the Centre – a heated discussion on the validity of Shariat court pronouncements, especially when they adversely affect and impinge on the fundamental rights of individuals, mostly women.
It should be made clear at the outset that the Supreme Court has not altogether banned Shariat law, holding that “some fatwas may be wise and issued for general good” and that they were a “matter of faith and choice.” The judgment rightly observed that a law court can intervene only when an individual’s rights are violated by particular fatwas.
This stems from the post-colonial state’s insistence upon its secular character which is mediated by the need to reassure religious minorities that led to the recognition of personal law. This created a context where the Indian constitution reflects tensions between the dominant secular legal system and religion-based Shariat law.
A national debate on the relevance and continuance of non-state legal mechanisms — Shariat courts or khap panchayats – which militate against the rights-based approach to justice in modern states – is definitely the need of the hour. It will allow us to examine the anxious relationship between modernity and tradition, whether Shariat courts and khap panchayats exist in contravention of constitutional law and even the rule of law and whether it is time the government devised a uniform civil code.
Within no time of the judgment being delivered, several Muslim social organisations expectedly raised objections. Their anxieties notwithstanding, the apex court judgment will inevitably lead to – especially when a powerful BJP-led coalition is at the helm of affairs at the Centre – a heated discussion on the validity of Shariat court pronouncements, especially when they adversely affect and impinge on the fundamental rights of individuals, mostly women.
It should be made clear at the outset that the Supreme Court has not altogether banned Shariat law, holding that “some fatwas may be wise and issued for general good” and that they were a “matter of faith and choice.” The judgment rightly observed that a law court can intervene only when an individual’s rights are violated by particular fatwas.
This stems from the post-colonial state’s insistence upon its secular character which is mediated by the need to reassure religious minorities that led to the recognition of personal law. This created a context where the Indian constitution reflects tensions between the dominant secular legal system and religion-based Shariat law.
A national debate on the relevance and continuance of non-state legal mechanisms — Shariat courts or khap panchayats – which militate against the rights-based approach to justice in modern states – is definitely the need of the hour. It will allow us to examine the anxious relationship between modernity and tradition, whether Shariat courts and khap panchayats exist in contravention of constitutional law and even the rule of law and whether it is time the government devised a uniform civil code.
