Author - Abhishek Chansoria, 1st Year student of IIT Law School (RGSOIPL).
The governance of our
country rests on three pillars: the legislature, the executive and the
judiciary. It
is the Constitution which has bestowed these separate powers on the three.
The same Constitution has left some elbow-space for the personal laws of an
individual providing for non-intervention of the State in the personal issue of
an individual, namely religion. But, what happens when this personal religious
institution takes up the job of any of the three? Will the policy of
non-intervention still hold its importance? If it doesn’t, then when does the
need of such intervention arise?
The major personal laws
in force in India are the Hindu and the Muslim laws. Every common law has been
formed and subsequently evolved according to the comforts of the society. Be it
the patriarchal northern India based on Aryan lines, or be it matriarchal
southern and eastern India influenced by the Dravidian society, both have been
churned with time to suit the ever growing society. Whereas it is evident that
the Muslim laws have a heavy bias towards the male counterparts, the Hindu
polygamy practices before the Srinivasa Aiyar v. Saraswathi Ammal, 1951 and the
subsequent Hindu Marriage Act 1955 also reflect the plight of women. The
government’s stance to abolish polygamy in Hindus was a blazing example of a
legislation driving a social change.
In the Muslim
communities, the practice of issuing Fatwa is a grave over-exercise of
jurisdiction by an institution. In the judgment given by the Supreme Court of
India in Vishwa LochanMadan v. Union of India,
fundamental rights given to the people are considered to be above personal and
religious norms. Article 13 of the Constitution states that every law which is
in contravention with the Constitution is void. From the very first day of the
enactment of the Constitution, certain fundamental rights have been recognized.
Hence, every action violating our rights is void. A fatwa is not given a legal
mandate and hence it has been left at the choice of the individual to follow
the same. The authorities issuing Fatwa do not draw its power from any
legislation, hence, the concept of deductive reasoning simply tells us that the
Fatwa also do not hold any legal sanctity. In the words of the Supreme Court- “The power to adjudicate a provision must flow
from a ‘validly made law’”, which involves the legislature. The religious
institution should exercise advisory actions pertaining to the need for a
balanced solution approach.
The khap panchayats are
infamous for their orthodox and conservative stand in inter-caste marriages. A
myriad of cases of honor killings are coming forward with every passing day.
Along with the analysis
of the need to check certain authorities from over-stepping actions, it is
imperative to acknowledge the social evils addressed by the same authorities. As we know that a Muslim
community in Pakistan and a Muslim community in India have the same religious
genesis but what is different between the two societies is the political
will which has driven them further. On one hand, the handful amendments in the
Muslim personal law show the political escapism in our country, and on the
other hand, the drive to acknowledge social changes which is a proof of
political desperation is surfacing in Pakistan.
In the last week of
May, 2014 the religious leaders of Pakistan issued a Fatwa stating honor killings
as an "Un-Islamic" act. The leaders opined that daughters are the
gifts by Allah and being dishonored by them is forbidden in Islam. There is a need
to look at our neighbour’s religious approach to the common laws.
A fatwa which is issued
for curbing the practice of honor killing, hence upholding the right to life,
liberty, free will of women and men shows the institutional responsiveness to
address the social evil. Whereas, the authorities in India issue a fatwa, which
is prima facie so retrograde, "advising" a rape victim to marry the rapist,
who is her father-in-law. The fatwa also stated that her husband can no longer
keep any physical relationship with her as it is written in Quran that
"Marry not the women whom your father copulated".
Talking about the khap panchayat’s
involvement in evils like honor killing, a question on the authority of the
Khap needs to be answered. From where do they draw the power to adjudicate such
draconian laws? The Supreme Court of India has used the term “kangaroo courts”
for such institutions. But, a critical point of analysis remains that, though
we have a well written Constitution along with its machinery, still the
provisions dictated by such authorities are recognized by a large part of the
population under them. Doesn’t it show the social status and acceptance enjoyed
by them?
As it is well evident
that the three pillars of our democracy have somewhere lacked in filling this
lacuna between the people (affected by such Fatwa and Khap) and their
constitutional rights, hence it will be prudent to use the authorities already
present on the ground for the constitutional realization. This can be done by
strict and careful regulation on such institutions and there powers. The khappanchayats
have been blamed for the honor killings, but recently a Khap namely, 'Satrol KhapPanchayat' in Narnid village, Haryana,
has come forward with its ideology which is far from conservatism. The Khap hasagreed with the truth that interaction between men and women has increased andstopping it is not possible. The decision given by the five-member committee has loosened the knot by
allowing marriages in 42 villages which were earlier banned. Also, it has shown
desperation is curbing female foeticide, bride sharing and dowry.
We can conclude that
whatever be the laws; personal or statutory, should not go against the
Constitution. The Constitution is above every personal law as it ensures
happiness for all not on the basis of religion but on the lines of individual dignity.
Disclaimer: This blog or any post thereof
is not to be considered to be in any way associated with the official stand of
IIT kharagpur or RGSOIPL on the issues being discussed in the said post. The
opinions on the blog are the authors own and should not be considered as legal
advice.
Abhishek Chansoria: very nyc dude.. :) keep goin..all d best ,best of luck.. :)
ReplyDelete