NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court Thursday agreed to examine whether a Muslim individual can opt to be governed by the Indian Succession Act, 1925, instead of Shariat law in matters of inheritance.
A bench of Chief Justice Sanjeev Khanna and Sanjay Kumar tagged the plea by Naushad K K, a lawyer from Kerala, with another petition filed by an ex-Muslim, Safiya PM. Safiya has sought a declaration that Muslims who have renounced their faith must be governed by the Indian Succession Act instead of the Muslim personal law.
Naushad’s plea seeks “judicial recognition and protection of the right of Muslim individuals to testamentary autonomy-specifically, the right to opt out of the testamentary limitations imposed by Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) if they explicitly and voluntarily choose to do so.”
He said his petition “does not challenge or seeks to reform Muslim Personal Law itself but questions whether the State has the duty or constitutional authority to enforce religious mandates against an individual’s expressed will, especially when such enforcement violates fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.”
The plea pointed out, “under Muslim Personal Law (Shariat), a Muslim individual can bequeath only up to one-third of their estate through a will, and among Sunni Muslims, this is limited to non-heirs. The remaining two-thirds must be distributed among legal heirs according to fixed Islamic inheritance principles (Faraid). Any deviation from this, is deemed invalid unless the legal heirs consent.”
Naushad contended “this restriction on testamentary freedom raises critical constitutional concerns” like “violation of Articles 14, 21, 25 and is a “contradictory and arbitrary state practice.”
“The State does not enforce other religious mandates such as prayers, fasting. dietary restrictions, or the prohibition on receiving interest-when Muslim individuals choose not to follow them. However, it enforces testamentary restrictions, which are purely private matters of personal choice and autonomy. This selective enforcement is arbitrary and contradicts the secular character of the Constitution.”
“Additionally, when a Muslim opts out of Nikah and marries under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, the State does not enforce Nikah, even if both parties are Muslims. Moreover, it presumes that by marrying under the Special Marriage Act, they have opted out of the entire Muslim Personal Law, including inheritance provisions, even without explicitly opting out of testamentary restrictions.”
“Conversely, when a Muslim intentionally opts out of testamentary restrictions by executing a will, ignoring the limitations or restrictions, the State deems it invalid… Thus, restricting testamentary freedom solely for Muslims lacks any rational nexus with the objective of protecting inheritance rights and creates an arbitrary and discriminatory classification.”
Agencies
SC agrees to examine if Muslims can choose Indian Succession Act over Shariat law
