#dnaEdit: Nothing personal

The Supreme Court’s ruling that shariat courts had no legal sanctity and fatwas must not be issued to trample upon the fundamental rights of citizens is a boon to Muslim women vulnerable to such diktats. Refraining from issuing a blanket ban, the Supreme Court has only chosen to rap these courts for overreach beyond Muslim personal law into citizens’ personal rights. The Bench while clarifying that there was no obligation to abide by fatwas, conceded that Muslim clerics and institutions can issue fatwas only when approached for adjudication of disputes. It is a wise approach by the Supreme Court and places the onus on the Muslim community to take this forward and press for reforms in personal law or their scrapping. 

It also mirrors the debate on the Uniform Civil Code which has featured in every BJP manifesto but has been opposed by Muslim conservatives and others who point out that successive governments have abandoned the idea in the absence of a consensus. Perhaps the Narendra Modi government can nudge the All India Muslim Personal Law Board(AIMPLB) into making an attempt to codify Muslim personal law in accordance with the Quran’s tenets and thus reduce the scope for arbitrariness. However, the AIMPLB’s argument in the Supreme Court — that the fatwa is only a cleric’s opinion and he does not have the authority to implement the fatwa — belies social realities. In an overtly patriarchal society, few Muslim women have the wherewithal to battle unjust fatwas. Courageous women like Shah Bano have been rare exceptions, only to be let down by the State when it mattered most.

In this context, the efforts by a Muslim women’s group, Bharatiya Mahila Muslim Andolan, to codify a gender-just Muslim personal law through a consultative process and abiding by the Quran are important.

Titled Muslim Marriage and Divorce Bill, the draft lays down conditions, procedures and responsibilities of registered Qazis for solemnising marriage, grounds for seeking divorce, and procedure for seeking alimony and custody of children. It forbids polygamy, under-age marriages and oral, unilateral and triple divorce, and mandates compulsory registration of marriage with civic authorities, the bridegroom’s one year’s annual income as mehr to the bride, and an arbitration process to settle disputes. Interestingly, the women activists have proposed a national campaign to raise awareness within their community before pressuring the government to adopt this Bill. Perhaps the State and the media can play an important role in giving adequate backing to this exemplary effort.

While it has struck a blow on the shariat courts, the Supreme Court must recognise that this problem goes beyond religions and personal laws. In rural India, kangaroo courts operating under various names like khap panchayats in Haryana and shalishi sabhas in West Bengal, dispense primitive justice. Not surprisingly, women and those breaking caste taboos are their most common victims. Though government-codified laws on inheritance and succession exist for other communities, there are many loopholes and very few women are able to take advantage of them. Before this government does set out to enact a Uniform Civil Code it must realise that most social evils have their roots in entrenched patriarchy and unequal power structures. Implementing a Uniform Civil Code without fear or favour across religions and communities might provoke violence and backlash that the Indian state could find itself inadequate to deal with. The present focus of the Uniform Civil Code discourse is only on Muslim personal law. Other communities are not much better.