Only Parl can decide on Muslim inclusion in Succession Act, SC told
The case revolves around a petition filed by Safiya PM who argued that Muslims, particularly those who renounce their faith, should have the option to be governed by the Indian Succession Act.
The Union government on Thursday submitted in the Supreme Court that the Indian Succession Act, 1925, cannot not extend to Muslims in view of the position reinforced by the statute’s own provisions, while adding that it is only for Parliament to consider whether the legal regime should be changed.
Additional solicitor general (ASG), Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Centre, argued that Section 58 of the Act explicitly excludes Muslims from its ambit, and any potential inclusion of Muslims under this law would require legislative action by Parliament.
“The petitioner, a Muslim, seeks to be covered under the Indian Succession Act but that is not possible in view of the clear language of the Act itself,” Bhati told the bench, which included Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra. The ASG emphasised: “Only Parliament can take a call on this.”
The case revolves around a petition filed by Safiya PM, a Muslim woman from Kerala who is the president of an organisation for former Muslims. Safiya argued that Muslims, particularly those who renounce their faith, should have the option to be governed by the Indian Succession Act instead of Muslim Personal Law, which presently dictates matters of inheritance and succession for Muslims.
Advocate Prashant Padmanabhan, appearing for Safiya, informed the bench on Thursday that a fresh application has been made to challenge the validity of Section 58 of the Act, prompting the court to seek an affidavit from the Union government within four weeks.
The Supreme Court had in April agreed to examine the need for a secular law governing wills and legacies for Muslims, raising broader questions about freedom of belief and equality under the law. The bench had at the time acknowledged the intricacies of the legal conflict introduced by the exclusion of Muslims from the Indian Succession Act, observing that it creates significant challenges for individuals like Safiya, who find themselves bound by a religious law they no longer follow.
At the centre of the contention is Section 58 of the 1925 Act, which is generally applicable to all other citizens regardless of their religious affiliations, except Muslims, in matters of testamentary succession.
Safiya’s petition has argued that Muslims should also have a choice to be governed by the Indian Succession Act instead of Muslim Personal Law -- especially individuals who are born Muslim but later renounce their faith. It contended that rather than being subject to Muslim Personal Law for inheritance purposes, she should be regulated by the 1925 Act.
Under the current system, those who are born Muslim but later renounce their faith or choose to be non-believers still find themselves bound by the Shariat law unless they make a formal declaration to opt out, as per Section 3 of the Shariat Act. However, even after they opt out, Section 58 of the Indian Succession Act disables them from the applicability of the general law on testamentary succession.
During the previous proceedings, Safiya’s counsel, Padmanabhan, brought to light the restrictions imposed by Muslim personal law, including the limit that a Muslim can only bequeath one-third of their property through a will, and the gender disparity in inheritance rights. He pointed out that while Muslims can opt out of the Shariat law under Section 3 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, they are still barred from being governed by the Indian Succession Act due to Section 58. Padmanabhan emphasised that this legal framework leaves Muslims who renounce their faith in a complex legal void, unable to fully benefit from secular testamentary laws.
This case potentially can set a precedent regarding how religious law applies to those who have consciously distanced themselves from the faith they were born into, raising fundamental questions about freedom of belief and the rights to equality under the law.