April 5, 2007 Supreme
Court Admits Plea
Challenging Islamic Courts
New Delhi
The Supreme Court Thursday admitted a public interest petition
challenging the functioning of 'parallel Islamic judicial system'
and fatwas issued by it.
Observing that the matter required examination, a bench of Justices
A.K. Mathur and Justice Dalveer Bhandari posted the matter for final
hearing.
The petitioner, Vishwa Lochan Madan, argued that the Islamic courts
were posing a challenge to the judicial system of the country. He
said the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) had claimed to
have established Darul Qaza or Muslim courts in Thane in Maharashtra,
Akola Dholiya in Rajasthan, Indore in Madhya Pradesh, South and East
Delhi, Asansol and Purulia in West Bengal, and Lucknow and Sitapur
in Uttar Pradesh.
Citing the fatwa, or diktat, issued by the Deoband-based seminary
Darul-Uloom in the case related to the rape of Imrana by her
father-in-law and the stand of AIMPLB, the petitioner said the
criminal law was not allowed to have its natural run as the entire
issue was hijacked by the clerics.
He cited the example of a similar case of Asoobi in Gurgaon, Haryana,
where the Darul Uloom issued fatwas deciding the course of action in
the incidents.
The petition sought a ban on establishment of such Islamic courts
and a declaration that these fatwas have no legal sanctity. It also
requested the court to direct the centre and the states to take
effective steps to dissolve all Darul Qazas and shariat courts.
The petitioner sought a direction to the AIMPLB and Darul Uloom,
Deoband, other seminaries and Muslim organisations asking them to
refrain from establishing a parallel Muslim judicial system or
Nizam-e-Qaza and to restrain these organisations from interfering
with the marital status of Indian Muslim citizens and passing any
judgments, fatwas or decrees as well as deciding matrimonial
disputes among Muslims.
The central government in its response said the Shariat courts were
not posing any threat to the judicial system. These courts were only
optional and were functioning merely as lok adalats, or people's
courts, and there was no compulsion on any one to go to them or to
accept the fatwas as laws of the land.
The AIMPLB and other Muslim organisations justified the Shariat
courts and said any attempt to interfere with the functioning of
such courts would amount to interference with the Muslims' personal
laws. They argued for dismissal of the petition.
Boloji.com is owned and managed by Boloji Media Inc Privacy Policy |
Disclaimer
No part of this Internet site may
be reproduced without prior written permission of the copyright holder.
