 |
|
SC issues notice on fatwas New Delhi, August 16 Taking cognizance of a public interest litigation (PIL) raising the issue, a Bench of Mr Justice Y.K. Sabharwal and Mr Justice C. K. Thakker also issued notices to the AIMPLB, Darul-ul-Uloom, Muslim for Secular Democracy and the states of Haryana, Assam, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Delhi and West Bengal, which were named as respondents by the petitioner, claiming that fatwas had been issued by some Islamic clergies in such cases in these states also. Imrana, a mother of five children, who was allegedly raped by her father-in-law Ali Mohammed in Charthawal Tehsil of Muzafarnagar district in June, was reportedly directed by Darul-ul-Uloom not to stay with her husband because after her assault by her father-in-law she had lost the right to be the wife of her husband as per the Shariat laws. The police had registered a FIR against Ali Mohammed on June 4 on the complaints of Imrana but the village Islamic Panchayat had issued its “verdict asking the victim to treat her husband as her son and banned her from living with him for reasons of her sexual relations with her father-in-law,” the PIL, filed by Delhi-based lawyer Vishwa Lochan Madan said. Subsequently the Islamic Seminary Darul-ul-Uloom of Deoband “passed a fatwa whereby it was declared that Imrana became ineligible to live with her husband. All India Muslim Personalaa Law Board on June 27 supported it,” the petitioner alleged. The dictates of Darul-ul-Uloom and AIMPLB, had raised four important questions that — it was an attempt to establish parallel (Islamic) judicial system (Nizam-ul-qazi), train parallel qazis (judges) and naib qazis (sub-judges) and give them certificates to function as judges, compel the followers of their religious faith, not to report matters to judicial machinery set up under the Constitution and adjudicate upon the disputes over matters covered by the provisions established statutory laws as per the Shariat (Islamic laws) — the PIL said. It pointed out that Imrana’s was not an isolated case where such a “fatwa” had been issued. There were other cases like Asoobi’s case of her sexual exploitation by her father-in-law in Nuh area of Gurgaon district of Haryana and subsequent dictates by “Siddique Madars” declaring that police could not intervene in the matter and Assam’s Jyotsna Ara episode where she also was subjected to rape by her father-in-law in Nagaon district and then faced the same fate at the hands of the “Muftis of Darul-Hadis Parmaibheti Islamia madarsa”. Raising an important question of law whether the Constitution permitted “concurrent jurisdiction in matters relating to matrimonial disputes governed by the personal law established under the Constitution or by “the pseudo-judicial system set up by the clergy of religious communities,” the petitioner said it was important to note that the clergy did not subject itself to the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 and 227 and that of Supreme Court under Article 32 and 136 of the Constitution, whereby citizens have right to approach these courts to mitigate their grievances. Describing it a serious development, the petitioner sought to declare such “activities” by the AIMPLB and other similar organisations for “establishment of Muslim judicial system (Nizam-e-Qaza) and Dar-ul-Qazas (Muslim Courts) and Shariat Courts in India as absolutely illegal, illegitimate and unconstitutional.” It further sought to declare any judgement and “fatwas” pronounced by any authority not established under law as “unenforceable being wholly non-est (non-existent) and void” and a clear direction to the Union Government and the states to forthwith take effective steps to “disband” all Dar-ul-Qazas and Shariat Courts, if set up in the country. It further sought a direction to AIMPLB and Darul-ul-Uloom to refrain from establishing parallel Muslim Judicial System, inter-meddling in the matrimonial disputes of Indian Muslims under the law which were not recognised by the Constitution and issuing or passing judgements, remarks and fatwas in such cases. A further direction was sought to AIMPLB and Darul-ul-Uloom not to train and appoint any Qazis, Naib-Qazis or Mufti for rendering any judicial service not recognised by the
Constitution.  |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Mailbag | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
