In a groundbreaking legal move, Safiya P M, a resident of Alappuzha and the general secretary of ‘Ex-Muslims of Kerala’, has approached the Supreme Court seeking to be governed by secular statutes rather than Sharia law. Born into Islam but now a non-believer, she asserts her right to religious freedom under Article 25 of the Constitution, arguing that it includes the right not to believe. Represented by advocate Prashant Padmanabhan, Safiya’s plea requests that she be governed by the Indian Succession Act, 1925, instead of Muslim Personal law concerning inheritance matters, emphasising the need for a secular framework in inheritance regardless of religious affiliation.
The Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, has acknowledged the pertinence of Safiya’s issue and has issued formal notices to the Centre and the State of Kerala. The case is slated for a detailed hearing in July, signalling the court’s recognition of the gravity of the matter.
Padmanabhan argues that secularism, as enshrined in the Constitution, ensures equality among all religions and grants individuals the freedom to believe or not to believe. He contends that individuals who renounce their faith should not face any discrimination in matters of inheritance or civil rights.
Formal notices have been issued to the Centre and the State of Kerala, and the case has been scheduled for a detailed hearing in July.
Padmanabhan submitted that the Supreme Court has already highlighted the “fundamental postulate of secularism which treats all religions on an even platform and allows to each individual the fullest liberty to believe or not to believe”.
Padmanabhan further submitted that a person who leaves her faith should not sustain any disability or disqualification in matters of inheritance or other pertinent civil rights.
“Persons who do not want to be governed by the Muslim Personal Law must be allowed to be governed by the secular law of the country, viz, the Indian Succession Act, 1925 both in the case of intestate and testamentary succession,” the plea stated.
“The petitioner wishes to get a declaration that she shall not be governed by Muslim Personal Law for any of the matters listed in Sections 2 or 3 of the Muslim Personal Law [Shariat] Application Act, 1937, but there is no provision either in the Act or in the Rules wherein she can obtain such a certificate. There is a clear vacuum in the statute which can be plugged by judicial interpretation,” the petition stated.
In essence, Safiya’s case represents a landmark legal challenge to the entrenched application of personal laws in India. It confronts the tension between religious identity and individual rights, paving the way for a nuanced examination of the intersection of law, religion, and personal autonomy in a secular democracy.
