Fatwa only an opinion?
In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court on July 7 said the Shariat Courts have no legal sanction and their decisions aren’t binding at all. Saying Shariat Court orders infringe the Fundamental Rights of people, the apex court restrained “Dar-ul-Qaza” and similar outfits from giving verdicts or issuing ‘fatwas’ against those who had not sought it.
The SC bench comprising Justices CK Prasad and Pinaki Chandra Ghose said the religious courts cannot pass an order that infringes on the Fundamental Rights of a person or of an affected person on a plea by a third person. The Shariat Courts can only pass edicts and only when an affected person approaches it, the court said.
Another News: Darul Uloom welcomes SC verdict?
?
The apex court’s ruling came on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking to put a cap on Shariat Courts, claiming they were functioning as parallel to the country”s judicial system. The PIL was filed by a Delhi based lawyer Vishwa Lochan Madan in 2005, who in his petition had challenged the legality of Shariat Courts. The petitioner said the institutions like Darul Qaza and Darul Iftaa have been operating like parallel courts which take decisions on the Fundamental Rights of Muslims. He also stated that religious clerics, quazis and muftis appointed by them, cannot take a call on the liberty of the Muslims by issuing fatwas and curtail their fundamental rights.
The petitioner argued Darul Qaza and Darul Iftaa operate in the Muslim dominated districts where people cannot oppose the rulings. Citing an example, the petitioner stated that a Muslim girl had to desert her husband because a ‘fatwa’ directed her to live with her father-in-law, who had allegedly raped her. The two-judge bench dubbed the UP incident cited by the lawyer as an eye-opener on ‘fatwas’. Referring to the incident, where the fatwa was issued after a journalist asked for a Shariat Court”s opinion, SC said religious courts should not issue ‘fatwas’ at the instance of strangers. But it also said no one should object to issue of ‘fatwas’ as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of individuals.
The apex court had reserved its judgement in a case in February 2014 and had reportedly said it cannot interfere with the religious decrees issued by the Muslim clerics.
“The power to adjudicate must flow from a validly made law. Person deriving benefit from the adjudication must have the right to enforce it… These are the fundamentals of any legal judicial system,” the court said. “… decisions of the dar-ul-qaza (Shariat Courts) or fatwa do not satisfy any of these requirements.”
It is an informal justice delivery system with an objective of bringing about amicable settlement between parties, it said. “It is within the discretion of the persons either to accept, ignore or reject it.” The court issued a word of caution for such courts as ‘fatwas’ get “strength from the religion” and have the potential of causing “serious psychological impact on the person intending not to abide by it”.
—Surender Singhal from Deoband?
