Author- Krishna Singh, NMIMS, School of Law, Indore

CASE DETAILS

i)          Judgement Cause Title / Case Name	Vishwa Lochan Madan v Union of India
ii)          Case Number	Writ Petition (Civil) No. 386 of 2005.
iii)          Judgement Date	July 07, 2014
iv)          Court	Supreme court
v)          Quorum / Constitution of Bench	Two Judge Bench
vi)          Author / Name of Judges	Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose Justice Chandramauli Kr. Prasad
vii)          Citation	AIR SUPREME COURT 2014 2957
viii)          Legal Provisions Involved	Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), and 25 (Freedom of Religion).

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The instant case of Vishwa Lochan Madan V Union of India centres upon the legal enforceability and validity of Fatwas, issued by Islamic courts ‘Dar-ul-Qazas. The landmark case addresses the reasonable balance between individual rights and religious freedom.  It even touches upon the imperative question of gender justice and the validity of informal judicial courts prevailing in the country. Through a formal petition, Vishwa Lochan Madan challenged before the Honourable Supreme Court the legal standing of fatwas and the establishment of informal courts. The petitioner presented the unfair rationale of Fatwas issued in the case of Imrana and Asoobi. Both being victims of rape, sexually were issued with Fatwas that prevailed over their rights and liberty.

The Fatwas, as contended by the Petitioner was supported by ALL INDIA MUSLIM PERSONAL LAW BOARD. Consequently, the petitioner pleaded before the Honourable Apex Court that the ALL-INDIA MUSLIM PERSONAL LAW BOARD is seeking to establish a parallel judicial system and all activities undertaken by the board must be held unconstitutional.

All India Muslim Personal Law Board:

The All-India Muslim Personal Law Board was established in 1973, to represent the interest of the Muslim community and to safeguard the rights of Muslims. It preserves the personal laws of Islam and maintains that their laws are based on Sharia law. The board comprises Muslim legal scholars who are recognized experts in Islamic laws and theology, referred to as Ulemas.  The board administers the training of Qazis and Naib Qazis. The Qazis and Naib Qaziz are responsible for administering justice in accordance with the sacred Islamic laws.

Sharia Law:

Sharia is the fundamental religious concept of Islam, specifically involving law. The Sharia law has a sacred origin. Regarded as an expression of Divine command for Muslims. It embodies a system of duties that are binding or obligatory upon Muslims. It is wider in its scope. Sharia law operates on distinct principles and regulates individual relationships with the state, the divine, and individual conscience. The Sharia law prioritizes ethical standing, which involves what must and should not be done. It comprises four major daily rituals as an integral component- daily prayers (ṣalāt), almsgiving (zakāt), fasting (ṣawm), and pilgrimage (hajj).

Prophet Muhammed founded the first Islam/Muslim community in Medina. During his sacred living, he addressed legal challenges following the Quran. The sharia law remains to be constant in its existence. As is widely believed that after the demise of Prophet Muhammad, divine interaction ceased to exist. Nonetheless, the various interpretations have allowed a comprehensive scope for diverse understandings. Within the timeframe of the pre-modern period the Muslim religious scholars, the Ulama enjoyed a monopoly over the interpretation of the divine law. Amidst expansion, various regions with Islamic dominion witnessed the evolution of various regional legal traditions.

Fatwas:

Fatwas implies the formal ruling, judgment, or interpretation of Islamic law given by Mufti (a religious legal scholar). Fatwas are advisory and are generally issued in response to individual questions or Islamic courts. Fatwas are based on the interpretation of the Sharia law. They are not binding on individuals.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Procedural Background of the Case:

• The instant case was filed as a Writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
• The two-judge bench comprised Honourable Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Honourable Justice Chandramauli Kr. Prasad.
• The petitioner Vishwa Lochan Madan presented the petition before the Honourable Apex court to challenge the establishment of a parallel judicial system by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board.
• The petition also questioned the legal standing of the issuance of Fatwas by Dar-ul-Qazas and its interference with the personal rights and liberty of individuals.
• The respondents included the Union of India, All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB)(Respondent No. 9), Dar-ul-Uloom Deoband (Respondent No. 10), and State governments including Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh.

Factual Background of the Case:

• Vishwa Lochan Madan petitioned before the apex court concerning the legal validity of Fatwas issued by Islamic courts such as Dar-ul-Qaza. The petitioner argued before the honorable court illustrating the issuance of Fatwas in the cases of Imrana, Asoobi, and a 19-year-old victim.
• Imrana a 28-year-old woman, and mother of five children was allegedly raped by her father-in-law. In response to this heinous incident, the Dar-ul-Uloom issued a Fatwa that caused a dilemma regarding her marital status and the legitimacy of her children. The verdict stated that the wife permanently becomes unlawful for the son, whose father has raped her. In the similar case of Asoobi, where she was raped by her father-in-law as well, the issued Fatwas ruled that no police report can be administered as no witness was present in the crime.
• These controversial Fatwas raised concerns regarding the preservation of individual and human rights, the petition further outlined that the respondent ALL INDIA MUSLIM PERSONAL LAW BOARD supported the Fatwas in question.
• The Union of India formally responded stating that Fatwas are merely advisory and not binding. Furthermore, to facilitate affable and affordable legislative proceedings Dar-ul-Qazas strives to serve as mediators and not as a parallel judicial system.
• The honorable court concluded that Dar-ul-Qaza lacks legislative authority to serve as the parallel judicial system. Secondly, Fatwas do not have any legal value and are not enforceable in a court of law. Furthermore, the Apex Court provided guidance on the issuance of Fatwas and emphasized the need to protect individual rights.

LEGAL ISSUES RAISED 

• Whether the the establishment of Dar-ul-Qaza constitute a parallel judicial system?
• Whether the issuance of Fatwas legitimate and legally enforceable?
• Whether the issuance of Fatwas by various Dar-ul-Qaza undermine the legal rights of Muslim women, primarily in matrimonial disputes?

PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

• The counsels for Petitioner submitted before the Hon’ble Court that all activities undertaken by the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board seek to establish a “parallel judicial system”[1] That is unconstitutional and undermines the prevalent judicial system.
• Secondly, the counsels for Petitioner argue that in view of the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board seeking redress in the prevalent judicial system is highly challenging for Muslim women. Consequently, as per the given estimation, the board has established various Dar-ul-Qazas across the nation to avail justice under the law of Shariat.
• It is the contention of the counsels for Petitioner, “that the judgments and fatwas pronounced by authorities have no place in the Indian Constitutional system, and the same are unenforceable being wholly non-est and void ab-initio”[2]
• Furthermore, counsels for Petitioner humbly submitted that the Fatwas issued in the cases of Imrana and Asoobi were contrary to law and fairness. The Fatwa in question had the support of the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board, according to the counsels for the petitioner formal dispute resolution is the primary function of the sovereign state, which can never be dissolved.
• In summation, the counsels for the Petitioner submitted that “activities being pursued by All India Muslim Personal Law Board and other similar organizations for the establishment of the Muslim Judicial System and setting up of Dar-ul-Qazas (Muslim Courts) and Shariat Court in India are illegal, illegitimate and unconstitutional.”[3]

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

• The counsels for Respondent submitted before the Hon’ble Court that Dar-ul-Qaza merely functions as “arbitrator, mediator, negotiator or conciliator”[4] In issues concerning family disputes and other civil matters between Muslims. They serve as mere alternative dispute-resolution mechanisms and do not administer criminal justice.
• Secondly, the counsels for Respondent argued that Dar-ul-Qaza aims to settle disputes outside of the court as an affable and affordable alternative. They oppose the contention of being perceived as a parallel judicial system, rather they deny having any authority or power of legal enforceability and put forward their functioning as mere arbitrators.
• The counsel for the respondent further asserts that Fatwas are merely advisory and have no legal value. They admit to “issuing Fatwa in Imrana’s case as per Fiqah-e-Hanafi, which is based on the Quran and Hadith,” [5]but they assert not having the authority to enforce it. They contend that it is upon the concerned parties to abide by the advice or not.
• Moreover, the counsels for the respondent humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that they do not deny the allegations put forward by the petitioner that the board has established the Dar-ul-Qazas, has trained Qazis and Naib Qaziz and practiced issuance of Fatwas. However, they contend that “Dar-ul-Qaza/Nizam-e-Qazas are not parallel judicial systems established in derogation of or in conflict with the recognized judicial system.” [6]
• In conclusion, the counsel for the respondent asserts that Dar-ul-Qaza has no authority or means to legally enforce or implement Fatwas and further contends that the writ petition is based on ignorance and misconception that Dar-ul-Qazas are parallel courts or judicial systems.

RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

• Article 14 Right to Equality: The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.[7]
• Article 21 Right to Life and Personal Liberty: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.[8]
• Article 25- Right to Freedom of Religion: Subject to public order, morality, and health and the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice, and propagate religion.
• Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law—
• Regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political, or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice;
• Providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.
  [9]

JUDGEMENT

RATIO DECIDENDI:

• The Honourable Supreme Court hereby directed that the issuance of Fatwas by Dar-ul-Qaza and related institutions lack authorized legal status given that they are not validated by any law made by the legislature.
• The Honourable Apex Court further stated that Dar-ul-Qaza does not constitute a parallel judicial system. On the enforceability of Fatwas, it was upheld that Fatwas are not legally enforceable and do not enjoy the authority of judicial decree.
• Fatwas are primarily advisory and carry significant weight within the community, however, they do not impose any binding obligations. The ruling emphasizes the sovereignty of the formal judicial system over religious adjudication.

GUIDELINES:

• The Honourable Supreme Court rendered specific guidelines on the issuance of Fatwas by Dar-ul-Qaza and similar institutions. The underlying purpose behind these guidelines is to ensure that religious assessments do not encroach upon individual rights and liberties.
• The Honourable Apex court thereby outlined that in the absence of explicit request of the individual, no Dar-ul-Qaza or resembling institution should issue a Fatwa concerning an Individual’s right, status, liberty, and obligation.
• In concerned instances where an individual is unable or incapable of seeking redressal, a person with immediate concern or direct interest may represent such an individual.
• The Fatwas must not be issued at the request of a third party or stranger regarding individual matters. Individuals who have no direct interest must not succumb to individual matters as they lead to violation of basic human rights.

OBITER DICTA:

• The court emphasized that Fatwas may carry religious significance, however, they may be used as a tool of oppression against the vulnerable.
• The judgment specified that Dar-ul-Qaza must avoid the issuance of Fatwas concerning individual rights and liberties unless requested by the individual.
• The court clarified that Fatwas carries no legal value or standing in the Indian legal framework.
• The court contended that religious faith and belief must not be used as a means to coerce or infringe on an individual’s fundamental rights.

CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The instant case is a landmark ruling emphasizing the protection of individual rights and liberties. The said ruling outlines reasonable boundaries upon personal laws infringing individual fundamental rights. Even though religious guidance plays an utmost positive role in shaping humanity, recognizing the evolution of contemporary social needs and liberties is seemingly imperative. The aforementioned case clarifies the sovereignty of formal courts over informal ones and provides clarified functioning of both legal institutions. Any redundant personal laws that cause adverse impacts on the vulnerable section are a significant harm to society. The said rulings guide us to transcend above our religious belief when it prompts harm to collective individual rights and liberties.

[1] Vishwa Lochan Madan v Union of India & Ors, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 386 of 2005, Supreme Court of India, Judgment dated 7 July 2014, AIR 2014 Supreme Court 2957.

[2] Vishwa Lochan Madan v Union of India & Ors, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 386 of 2005, Supreme Court of India, Judgment dated 7 July 2014, AIR 2014 Supreme Court 2957.

[3] Vishwa Lochan Madan v Union of India & Ors, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 386 of 2005, Supreme Court of India, Judgment dated 7 July 2014, AIR 2014 Supreme Court 2957.

[4] Vishwa Lochan Madan v Union of India & Ors, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 386 of 2005, Supreme Court of India, Judgment dated 7 July 2014, AIR 2014 Supreme Court 2957.

[5] Vishwa Lochan Madan v Union of India & Ors, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 386 of 2005, Supreme Court of India, Judgment dated 7 July 2014, AIR 2014 Supreme Court 2957.

[6] Vishwa Lochan Madan v Union of India & Ors, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 386 of 2005, Supreme Court of India, Judgment dated 7 July 2014, AIR 2014 Supreme Court 2957.

[7] Constitution of India 1950, art 14

[8] Constitution of India 1950, art 21.

[9] Constitution of India 1950, art 25.