 | « Back to article | Print this article |
Alarmed by a petition pointing out a parallel Islamic judiciary for handling "Imrana" type cases, the Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notices to the central government, All India Muslim Personal Law Board and Islamic seminary Darul Uloom.
A Bench comprising Justice Y K Sabharwal and Justice C K Thakker also issued notices to Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Assam, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, West Bengal and Delhi, where, according to the petition, Islamic courts have been formed, posing a challenge to the judicial system of the country.
Petitioner Vishwa Lochan Madan, seeking immediate dissolution of all Islamic and shariat courts in India, said the AIMPLB claimed to have established Darul Qaza or Muslim courts in Thane in Maharashtra, Akola Dholiya in Rajasthan, Indore in Madhya Pradesh, South and East Delhi, Asansol and Purulia in West Bengal, and Lucknow and Sitapur in Uttar Pradesh.
AIMPLB: Halt 'interference' in personal laws
Citing the fatwa issued by the Deoband-based seminary Darul-Uloom in Imrana rape case and the stand of AIMPLB, the petitioner said the criminal law was not allowed to have its natural run as the entire issue was hijacked by the clerics.
He cited the example of the case of Asoobi in Gurgaon, Haryana, resembling the case of Imrana, where the Darul Uloom issued fatwas deciding the course of action in the incidents.
'Imrana's fate should not be decided by ancient law'
The petitioner sought a ban on establishment of such Islamic courts, a declaration that these fatwas have no legal sanctity and requested the court to direct the Centre and the states to take effective steps to dissolve all Darul Qazas and shariat courts.
The petitioner also sought a direction from the court to the AIMPLB and Darul Uloom, Deoband, other seminaries and Muslim organisations asking them to refrain from establishing a parallel Muslim judicial system or Nizam-e-Qaza.
The petition sought a direction from the court to restrain these organisations from interfering with the marital status of Indian Muslim citizens and passing any judgement, fatwas or decrees as well as deciding matrimonial disputes amongst Muslims.
Besides, a direction from the court to AIMPLB and Darul Ulooms in the country, "not to train or appoint qazis, naib-qazis or muftis for rendering any judicial service of any kind," was also sought.
Raising a question, the petitioner said whether the right to freedom of religion, guaranteed under the Constitution, could be extended to establishment of a parallel judicial system.
Citing three incidents of daughters-in-law allegedly raped by their fathers-in-law, the petitioner said "the defiant attitude" of the functionaries of Darul Ulooms and AIMPLB was an "open affront" to the judicial system set up under the Indian Constitution.