Supreme Court Declines to Intervene in Personal Laws, Urges Legislature to Take Up Reforms
In landmark rulings, SC dismisses public interest litigations challenging discriminatory provisions in Muslim, Hindu, and Christian personal laws, emphasizing the role of legislature over judiciary in social reforms
In a significant judgment delivered on February 24, 1997, the Supreme Court of India, presided over by Chief Justice A.M. Ahmadi along with Justices Sujata V. Manohar and K. Venkataswami, dismissed a series of public interest litigations filed by Ahmedabad Women Action Group (AWAG), Lok Sevak Sangh, Young Women Christian Association (YWCA), and others. These petitions sought constitutional invalidation of various provisions in personal laws governing Muslims, Hindus, and Christians, citing violations of Articles 13, 14, and 15 of the Constitution of India.
The petitions challenged key aspects such as:
- - Muslim Personal Law provisions permitting polygamy and unilateral Talaq without judicial oversight,
- - Hindu Succession and Marriage Act provisions allegedly discriminatory against women,
- - Indian Divorce Act sections seen as unfair, and
- - The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.
The Court held that these issues fundamentally involve questions of social policy and legislative competence, which fall exclusively within the domain of the legislature. The judiciary reiterated its stance that courts cannot substitute their policy preferences for legislative action, especially when dealing with sensitive matters of religious personal laws.
Justice Venkataswami, delivering the judgment, emphasized the separation of powers and cautioned against judicial activism in complex socio-legal reforms. The Court noted precedents including Maharshi Avadhesh v. Union of India (1994), Reynold Rajamani v. Union of India (1982), and Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India (1995), which consistently upheld that personal laws, rooted in religious texts and traditions, are outside the immediate purview of Part III fundamental rights enforcement, and that reforms must be enacted progressively by the legislature.
The Court also observed that while the idea of a Uniform Civil Code is desirable and enshrined as a directive principle under Article 44 of the Constitution, the timing and manner of its enactment rest with the legislative branch. The Court referenced past decisions, including State of Bombay v. Narasu Appa Mali (1952), which recognized the legislature’s prerogative in social reform and the constitutional accommodation of religious diversity in personal laws.
Further, the Court acknowledged the complexities arising from the coexistence of various personal laws among different communities and the sensitivities involved. It noted that judicial imposition of uniformity or reinterpretation of laws beyond their textual scope could disrupt social harmony and was inappropriate.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court declined to entertain the writ petitions and urged the petitioners and civil society to address their concerns through legislative channels and democratic processes rather than judicial intervention.
IMPORTANT
This judgement was however overturned by Supreme Court in Triple Talak case Shayara Bano v. Union of India (SC)(Constitution Bench) : Law Finder Doc Id # 890902, the Court held that it is difficult to discover any ratio in this judgment, as one part of the judgment contradicts another part. If one particular statutory enactment is already under challenge, there is no reason why other similar enactments which were also challenged should not have been disposed of by this Court. Quite apart from the above, it is a little difficult to appreciate such declination in the light of Prem Chand Garg (supra). This judgment, therefore, to the extent that it is contrary to at least two Constitution Bench decisions cannot possibly be said to be good law.
Statutory provisions:- Articles 13, 14, 15, 32, 44 of the Constitution of India; Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986; Hindu Succession Act, 1956; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Indian Divorce Act; Indian Succession Act; Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939
Ahmedabad Women Action Group (AWAG) v. Union of India, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 78089
