Supreme Court Upholds Criminal Liability for Bigamy Despite Conversion to Islam

Conversion to Islam solely to solemnize second marriage without dissolving first Hindu marriage remains void and punishable under Section 494 IPC; Court clarifies no directions issued for Uniform Civil Code enforcement

In a landmark judgment delivered on May 5, 2000, the Supreme Court of India reaffirmed the legal position that a Hindu man who converts to Islam solely to contract a second marriage without dissolving his first valid Hindu marriage is liable for prosecution under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for bigamy. This decision came in the Review Petition and Writ Petitions challenging the Court's earlier ruling in the Sarla Mudgal case (1995), which had pronounced that such second marriages are void and criminally punishable.

The Court, comprising Justices S. Saghir Ahmad and R.P. Sethi, heard the petitions filed by various parties including the Jamiat-Ulema Hind and Muslim Personal Law Board, who sought to set aside or modify the Sarla Mudgal judgment on grounds including violation of fundamental rights under Articles 20, 21, 25, and 26 of the Constitution. However, after extensive analysis, the Court dismissed all petitions, holding that the earlier interpretation of the law was correct and did not violate any constitutional rights.

The judgment clarified that under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, monogamy is a mandatory condition for a valid Hindu marriage. Sections 5(i), 11, and 17 of the Act stipulate that any marriage solemnized during the subsistence of an existing marriage, with either party having a spouse living, is void and punishable. The provisions of Sections 494 and 495 IPC are incorporated through Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, making bigamy a criminal offence.

Significantly, the Court observed that conversion or apostasy to another religion, including Islam, does not automatically dissolve a valid Hindu marriage. While conversion may be a ground for divorce or judicial separation under Sections 13 and 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the marital bond remains intact until legally dissolved. Therefore, a second marriage contracted after conversion without a decree of divorce is void and attracts criminal liability.

The Court also addressed the issue of “feigned conversion,” stating that religion is a matter of sincere faith and conscience. Conversion solely to evade the law and contract a second marriage constitutes religious bigotry and cannot be condoned. The Court emphasized that the institution of marriage is sacred and must be preserved against exploitative practices.

Responding to concerns about infringement of religious freedoms under Article 25 of the Constitution, the Court ruled that freedom of religion does not permit violation of laws protecting the rights of others. It held that the Muslim Personal Law permitting polygamy does not grant immunity to a convert from prosecution if the first marriage subsists under Hindu law. The Court rejected the argument that the Sarla Mudgal judgment imposed new law, clarifying that it was an interpretation of existing statutes.

The Court also dispelled fears that the judgment mandated the immediate enforcement of Article 44 of the Constitution (Uniform Civil Code), clarifying that this is a policy matter for the Legislature. No directions were issued to enforce a uniform civil code, and the judgment only suggested that the Government consider the desirability of such legislation.

Regarding procedural safeguards, the Court noted that prosecution under Section 494 IPC requires proof of all essential ingredients, including a valid second marriage solemnized with proper ceremonies. Mere admissions or allegations are insufficient for conviction.

The Court vacated all interim orders, including stays on criminal proceedings related to bigamy, thereby allowing subordinate courts to proceed with trials as per the law.

This judgment thus strengthens the protection of monogamous Hindu marriages against exploitation through conversion and bigamy and clarifies the legal interplay between personal laws and criminal statutes in India.

Statutory provisions: Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Sections 5(i), 10, 11, 13, 17; Indian Penal Code Sections 494, 495; Code of Criminal Procedure Section 198; Constitution of India Articles 14, 20, 21, 25, 26, 32, 44, 136, 137

Lily Thomas v. Union of India, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 18913