THE BOUNDARIES OF JUDICIAL INTERVENTION: ANALYZING THE SUPREME COURT’S AUTHORITY IN PERSONAL LAWS
AUTHOR – MD MUJTABA, STUDENT OF INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT ROHTAK
BEST CITATION – MD MUJTABA, THE BOUNDARIES OF JUDICIAL INTERVENTION: ANALYZING THE SUPREME COURT’S AUTHORITY IN PERSONAL LAWS, ILE CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW, 3 (1) of 2024, Pg. 01-11, APIS – 3920 – 0006 | ISSN – 2583-7168.
Introduction
In the legal and political arenas, the relationship between personal laws, religion, and judicial involvement has been a challenging and nuanced affair.[1] People governed themselves under personal laws that are firmly anchored in religious or cultural beliefs in varied cultural groups.[2] Personal laws regulate things like inheritance, marriage, divorce, and other personal affairs.[3]There has been ongoing debate over the scope and limits of judicial intervention in personal laws; this study aims to clarify this complex and diverse field.
“Entire humanity rests on the foundation stone of religion and it was a matter of pride that religion occupied a central place in India’s tradition, social system and political activities since time immemorial”[4]. In every religion, personal laws are an essential part of one’s identity as an individual and as a member of that religious group.[5] It sets the rules for important facets of people’s lives, such as religious beliefs, cultural customs, and family arrangements. Any action is extremely important as how deeply ingrained these laws are in the lives of people and communities. The judgement of State of Bombay v. Narasu Appa Mali[6] held that “personal laws are immune from the application of Article 13 on grounds of Personal laws are not “laws” under Article 13(3)(a) of the Constitution, and Personal laws are not “laws in force” under Article 13(3)(b) of the Constitution.”[7]
In the case of “the Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras Vs. Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mut, the court decided to define what constitutes an essential and non-essential activity of a religion and declared that the term “religion” will encompass all rites and activities that are “integral” to a religion.”[8] And evolved Essential Practice Doctrine, a legal theory that has been vital in issues concerning personal legislation, is at the center of this research. According to this theory, changing particular religious or cultural customs viewed as a breach of fundamental rights as they are vital to the faith or community. It is alleged that although the judiciary is charged with the responsibility of interpreting constitutional issues, it should proceed with caution when exploring theological nuances because it is not its place to determine the veracity of a religion. The established doctrine of “essentiality” calls into question the extent to which the court can get involved in religious matters and the possibility that it will go too far in maintaining the separation of religion and state.
A number of court cases have surfaced that highlight the difficulties and nuances of judicial involvement in personal legislation. In Mary Roy V. State Of Kerala[9] case where it addressed identical entitlement to inheritance for Christian women. The court’s decision in this instance established that no personal law could override the Indian Constitution, and any provision that did so would be null and void.. Similarly in the case of T Sareetha V. Venkata Subbaiah[10] the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955’s Section 9 was declared unconstitutional by the court on the grounds that forcing someone to engage in non-consensual sexual actions is extremely degrading and goes against Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. Similarly the court has interfered and over reached in the cases of Indian Young Lawyers’ Association v State of Kerala[11], Shah Bano Case[12]and Shayara Bano V. Union Of India[13]. The study looks at these cases and analyses the debates, discussions, and ramifications that surround them.
One well-known case[14] with significant constitutional ramifications is the Sabarimala temple access issue, in which the Supreme Court rendered a decision which over turned personal law of Lord Ayyappa’s devotees as a separate religious denomination. This case highlighted the need to carefully consider the limits of judicial interference in personal laws by sparking a national conversation about how to strike a balance between judicial power of determining the essential practices and religious practices.
The natural difficulty that judges have in comprehending intricate religious subjects is a crucial factor to take into account in the situation of determining the essential religious practices. It is difficult to understand the complexities of faith, tradition, and religious rituals for the judges who have no background knowledge of the religious scriptures, customs and traditional logic of the particular religion; this creates significant concerns, concerning the proper role of the judiciary in areas of personal law.
Sections 45 to 51[15] and Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, regulate the acceptance of expert testimony in court proceedings. Historically, these clauses have covered a wide range of topics, including science, art, foreign law, handwriting, and fingerprint analysis. One notable omission from these standards is the provision of professional opinions on religious and personal law concerns. In light of the current social and legal context, expert like pandit’s, maulvi’s or clergy’s opinion should be taken into account when discussing the notion of necessary religious activities, especially where theological nuances play a significant role in the legal discussion. It will be unreasonable to decide the essentiality of religious practices without an expert opinion. With the goal of providing insights and suggestions for future reforms in this important area of legal and social debate, this study aims to advance knowledge of the limits and ramifications of judicial action in personal laws and examines various court rulings to demonstrate how religious freedom is negatively impacted by the essentiality test.
[1] Larcen, G.J. (no date) Religion & Personal Law in secular india. Available at: https://casi.sas.upenn.edu/sites/default/files/iit/Religion%20%26%20Personal%20Law%20in%20Secular%20In dia%20-%202001.pdf (Accessed: 07 November 2023).
[2] Tiwari P, ‘India’s civil code: A source for ideological disputes’ (Al Jazeera, 25 December 2015) <www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/12/25/indias-civil-code-a-source-for-ideological-disputes> accessed 7 November 2023
[3] https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/12/25/indias-civil-code-a-source-for-ideological-disputes
[4] President Droupadi Murmu, “Religion Occupied Key Place in Social System Since Time Immemorial: Prez”, Business Standard, Mar. 03, 2023, available at: https://www.business-standard.com/article/current- affairs/religion-occupied-key-place-in-social-system-since-time-immemorial-prez-123030300686_1.html (last visited on Oct. 25, 2023).
[5] Srivastava, D. K. “PERSONAL LAWS AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.” Journal of the Indian Law Institute 18, no. 4 (1976): 551–86. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43950450.
[6] The State of Bombay vs. Narasu Appa Mali (24.07.1951 – BOMHC) : MANU/MH/0040/1952
[7] Maniyar Z, ‘Personal Laws Vis-à-Vis Fundamental Rights, Part III of the Constitution’(CJP, 30 November 2022) <https://cjp.org.in/personal-laws-vis-a-vis-fundamental-rights-part-iii-of-the-constitution/> accessed 11 November 2023
[8] MANU/SC/0136/1954 The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras vs. Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt. (16.03.1954 – SC) : MANU/SC/0136/1954
[9] Mrs. Mary v. State of Kerala, 1986 AIR 1011, 1986 SCR (1) 371
[10] T. Sareetha v. Venkata Subbaiah, AIR 1983 AP 356
[11] Indian Young Lawyers Association v. The State of Kerala, 28 September, 2018, Supreme Court of India
[12] Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, 1985 AIR 945, 1985 SCR (3) 844
[13] Shayara Bano v. Union of India, 22 August, 2017 Supreme Court of India
[14] Indian Young Lawyers Association v. The State of Kerala, 28 September, 2018, Supreme Court of India
[15] Indian Evidence Act, 1872