Sharia courts not sanctioned by law, fatwas illegal: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Monday said a Shariat court, issuing fatwa and order
against a person who is not before it, has no sanction of law and has no legal
status. The apex court said there is "no doubt" that such a court has no legal status
while noting that in some cases, orders were being passed by them which violate
human rights and punish innocent persons.
Read: SC has not banned Shariat courts: Darul Uloom Deoband lawyer
A bench headed by justice CK Prasad said that no religion, including Islam, allows punishing the innocent and ordered that no 'Darul Qaza' should give verdict which affects rights of a person who is not before it. "Sharia courts are not sanctioned by law and there is no legality of fatwas in this country," said Prasad as he read out the judgement from a two-judge bench.
The apex court said that Islamic judges, who interpret religious law, could only rule when individuals submitted voluntarily to them and their decisions, or fatwas, were not legally binding. The SC was hearing a petition filed by Delhi-base advocate Vishwa Lochan Madan, told AFP on Monday that his demand had been rejected. "The Supreme Court observed that Sharia courts have no legal sanctity. But if people still want to approach these courts, it's their will," he said. He filed his petition in 2005 and cited a case in which a woman was told to leave her husband and children and live with her father-in-law who had raped her.
All India Personal Law Board had earlier submitted that fatwas were not binding on people and it was just an opinion of a mufti or a cleric and he has no power and authority to implement it. The counsel, appearing for the board, had said if a fatwa was sought to be implemented against the wish of the person concerned, then he could approach the court of law against it. The petitioner had submitted that the fundamental rights of Muslims could not be controlled and curtailed through fatwas issued by qazis and muftis appointed by Muslim organisations.?
"No religion is allowed to curb anyone's fundamental rights," the court added in its judgement while taking note of the case. Qasim Rasool Niyazi, from the Muslim Personal Law Board, said the Supreme Court ruling vindicated his group's contention that Sharia courts were not a parallel judiciary. They issue notices which are not legally binding, he explained. India's 150 million Muslims follow their own laws governing family life and other personal issues such as marriage and divorce, with Sharia courts used to rule on such matters and mediate in disagreements.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/shariat-courts-have-no-legal-sanctity-says-supreme-court/article1-1237635.aspx
Read: SC has not banned Shariat courts: Darul Uloom Deoband lawyer
A bench headed by justice CK Prasad said that no religion, including Islam, allows punishing the innocent and ordered that no 'Darul Qaza' should give verdict which affects rights of a person who is not before it. "Sharia courts are not sanctioned by law and there is no legality of fatwas in this country," said Prasad as he read out the judgement from a two-judge bench.
The apex court said that Islamic judges, who interpret religious law, could only rule when individuals submitted voluntarily to them and their decisions, or fatwas, were not legally binding. The SC was hearing a petition filed by Delhi-base advocate Vishwa Lochan Madan, told AFP on Monday that his demand had been rejected. "The Supreme Court observed that Sharia courts have no legal sanctity. But if people still want to approach these courts, it's their will," he said. He filed his petition in 2005 and cited a case in which a woman was told to leave her husband and children and live with her father-in-law who had raped her.
All India Personal Law Board had earlier submitted that fatwas were not binding on people and it was just an opinion of a mufti or a cleric and he has no power and authority to implement it. The counsel, appearing for the board, had said if a fatwa was sought to be implemented against the wish of the person concerned, then he could approach the court of law against it. The petitioner had submitted that the fundamental rights of Muslims could not be controlled and curtailed through fatwas issued by qazis and muftis appointed by Muslim organisations.?
"No religion is allowed to curb anyone's fundamental rights," the court added in its judgement while taking note of the case. Qasim Rasool Niyazi, from the Muslim Personal Law Board, said the Supreme Court ruling vindicated his group's contention that Sharia courts were not a parallel judiciary. They issue notices which are not legally binding, he explained. India's 150 million Muslims follow their own laws governing family life and other personal issues such as marriage and divorce, with Sharia courts used to rule on such matters and mediate in disagreements.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/shariat-courts-have-no-legal-sanctity-says-supreme-court/article1-1237635.aspx
