The Supreme Court has ruled that sharia courts have no legal sanction and no one is bound to accept a fatwa or diktat by such courts.

news Tuesday, April 07, 2015 - 05:30

Biswajeet Banerjee | The News Minute | July 7, 2014 | 8:08 PM IST 

Muslim clerics have reacted cautiously to the Supreme Court ruling on Shariat courts and fatwas saying that Indian constitution allows Muslims to follow “their own personnel laws” and the court ruling cannot dilute the importance of Darul Qaza.

 “Darul Qaza is not a parallel court. It is a suggestive body which offers suggestions to aggrieved parties under Islamic laws and its directive is binding on the person who moves the court,” Maulana Khalid Rashid Firangimahali, Imam of Idgah in Lucknow said.

The Maulana is also member of All India Muslim Personnel Law Board.

The Supreme Court has ruled that sharia courts have no legal sanction and no one is bound to accept a fatwa or diktat by such courts. The Apex Court gave its verdict on a petition filed by a Delhi-based advocate Vishwa Lochan Madan, challenging parallel courts run by institutions like the Darul Qaza and Darul-Iftaa.

In his petition, he stated that institutions like Darul Qaza and Darul-iftaa are operating like parallel courts which take decisions impacting the fundamental rights of the Muslim citizens. The petitioner further argued that the Darul Qaza and Darul-iftaa operate in Muslim dominated districts where people cannot oppose the rulings.

“As per Islam Shariat courts have legal sanctity. Only those cases are taken up which are not registered in any civil court. The parties have to give in writing about this. And moreover, these courts do not take criminal cases. These deals with personal matters which needs to be solved under the light of Muslim Personnel Law,” the Maulana said.

“In case of Muslims even the civil courts in India even give rulings based on Muslim personnel law.” he said.
 The working in these Sharia courts came under scrutiny in a case where a 28 year old lady with five kids was raped by her 69 year old father-in law. And when the aggrieved party went to Shariyat court she was asked to divorce her husband and re-marry her father in law. The court even said that the lady should now treat her husband as her son.

This case was later known as Imrana Rape case.

Imrana and her husband moved out of the village in Muzaffarnagar in western Uttar Pradesh after Muslims of that area asked her to marry her father in law.

The Maluama said that Supreme Court verdict has however not banned Shariat courts. It is a stinging slap on the cheek of those communal forces who are demanding ban on Darul Qaza, he adds.

Show us some love! Support our journalism by becoming a TNM Member - Click here.