29 April, New Delhi
Islamic courts such as “Qazi’s Court,” “Kaziyat’s Court (Darul Qaza),” or “Sharia Court” have no legal validity; the Supreme Court has repeatedly stressed this.
The court made it clear that none of the directions given by them have any force in the law, and their decisions are not enforceable.
When considering an appeal by a woman seeking alimony on February 4, a bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah cited a 2014 ruling that stated Shariat courts and fatwas are not recognized by the law.
Based on a settlement deed submitted to an Islamic court, the family court denied the woman alimony. The decision was upheld by the Allahabad High Court.
Justice Amanullah criticized the Family Court’s methodology and emphasized that the terms “Qazi Court,” “Darul Qaza Kaziyat Court,” “Sharia Court,” and others are not recognized by the law. Their decision cannot be forced upon anyone, and it is not considered legally binding.
While individuals may refer to their respective religions, they may only offer advisory opinions. Organizations like the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) cannot force others to abide by them.
Civil courts, according to the law, are the only institutions that have the power to impose legally binding decisions, and all Indian citizens, religion, are governed by the Indian Constitution.
The judgment has been praised by lawyers, who have described it as safeguarding individuals against compulsion in the guise of religious authority and asserting the secular nature of India’s judicial system.
The Supreme Court verdict clearly states that religious freedom, while well-protected, cannot be used to defeat or limit the power of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court decision demonstrates that, although religious freedom is assured, it cannot be used to escape or negate the jurisdiction of the Constitution.
