Background:

In the case of Sufiya PM v Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 135/2024, the petitioner, Sufiya PM, a Kerala-based woman and President of an organization of Ex-Muslims, sought a declaration that individuals born Muslim but no longer believers should be governed by the Indian Succession Act 1925 instead of Shariat law concerning inheritance.

Key Points:

1. The Supreme Court, composed of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, issued notice on the writ petition, deeming it an “important issue.”
2. Initially, the bench expressed reservations about the petitioner’s claim, questioning the applicability of personal law based on belief status and the court’s authority under Article 32 without a challenge to specific statutory provisions.
3. The petitioner’s counsel, Advocate Prashant Padmanabhan, argued that the petitioner’s situation, including restrictions on inheritance under Muslim Personal Law, warranted consideration.
4. Discussions ensued regarding the necessity of a specific declaration under Section 3 of the Shariat Act and the exclusion of Muslims under Section 58 of the Indian Succession Act, potentially creating a legal void.
5. The bench acknowledged the complexity of the issue and agreed to consider it further, granting the petitioner’s counsel liberty to amend the petition.

Legal Provisions:

1. Section 3 of the Shariat Act requires a specific declaration for individuals to be governed by Shariat law.
2. Section 58 of the Indian Succession Act excludes its applicability to Muslims, posing potential challenges in inheritance matters for non-believers.
3. Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees the right to religious freedom, including the right to be a non-believer.

Legal Analysis:

1. The bench analyzed the interplay between Section 3 of the Shariat Act and Section 58 of the Indian Succession Act, highlighting potential gaps in the legal framework for non-believers.
2. Questions arose regarding the court’s authority under Article 32 to grant declarations without challenges to specific statutory provisions.
3. The petitioner’s counsel referenced ongoing examination of Section 58 in another petition, suggesting potential legal developments in the area.

Conclusion:

1. The Supreme Court agreed to delve further into the matter, recognizing its importance and granting the petitioner’s counsel the opportunity to amend the petition.
2. The case underscores the need for clarity and potential legislative intervention to address gaps in the legal framework concerning inheritance rights for individuals who cease to be believers in Islam.

SOURCE – 

• The Indian Express
• Article 25 of the Constitution