The Muslim body told a bench of Justices Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta that the HC mistook 'farmaan' to mean 'fatwa' and proceeded to pass orders against all religious bodies without hearing their side.
The Supreme Court on Friday stayed an order of the Uttarakhand High Court that made a declaration of fatwa "unconstitutional" and "illegal".
The Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind approached the Court challenging an August 30, 2018 decision which passed a sweeping ban on all religious outfits, groups, and statutory bodies such as Panchayats or other local self-governing bodies in the state from issuing fatwas.
The Muslim body told a bench of Justices Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta that the HC mistook 'farmaan' to mean 'fatwa' and proceeded to pass orders against all religious bodies without hearing their side. By doing so, the HC went against a Supreme Court decision of July 7, 2014, where the validity of 'fatwa' was specifically examined by the Court and held that it is merely an advice or opinion and cannot be legally enforced or made binding on any person.
The SC bench admitted the petition and directed stay of the HC order. The Jamiat through senior advocate Raju Ramachandran had claimed that the HC acted on a news report where a rape victim's family was directed by a village panchayat to leave the village. This according to Ramachandran was not a fatwa but a 'farmaan' (diktat). Fatwa is an Islamic legal pronouncement that can be given only by Mufti or Dar-ul-Ifta (Fatwa Council), considered experts in religious law. The fatwa aims to resolve an issue between two parties in accordance with Islamic law, he added. This is merely an opinion and has no force of law.
The HC did observe this position of law but got carried away by the fact as to how a local body of persons could pass a decree against any individual based on a case brought to it by a third party or stranger. The HC noted that such an order, which it termed as fatwa, violated an individual's dignity, liberty, and hence cannot be accepted under our Constitution.
WHAT HC HAD SAID
The Uttarakhand HC noted that such an order, which it termed as fatwa, violated an individual’s dignity, liberty, and hence cannot be accepted under our Constitution.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "SUPREME COURT")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}