The Supreme Court of India is set to deliberate on a case that could potentially redefine the application of personal laws in the country. The case, brought forward by Safiya PM, a Muslim woman from Kerala who has renounced Islam, challenges the applicability of the Muslim Personal Law (Sharia Law) in matters of inheritance for those who no longer adhere to the faith. She has petitioned to be governed instead by the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
On January 28, a bench led by Chief Justice Khanna and comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan examined the far-reaching implications of the case. The court remarked that if Muslim women who renounce their faith can opt for the Indian Succession Act, the same right should extend to apostates born into other religions.
The bench pointed out the broader legal ramifications of such an interpretation and directed the central government to submit its stance within four weeks. Chief Justice Khanna also highlighted the legal inconsistencies across religious personal laws, stating, “Under the Hindu Succession Act, if you convert, your inheritance is taken away. If you convert, you lose your right of inheritance.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union of India, countered by stating that the Hindu Succession Act does not restrict inheritance through wills. However, the Chief Justice noted that issues arise in cases of joint Hindu family property and intestate successions. The bench insisted that “legal provisions disqualify persons after conversion or renouncing faith in various religious laws,” demanding a formal response from the Centre.
Advocate Prashant Padmanabhan, representing Safiya PM, outlined her grievance: as per Sharia Law, she is entitled to only one-third of her father’s property, despite having the responsibility of caring for her autistic brother. The petition challenges Section 58 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which explicitly excludes Muslims from its scope.
Padmanabhan contended that a person who has abandoned a religion should not be subject to its personal laws and that inheritance rights should be governed by secular law. “The fundamental principle of secularism allows individuals the liberty to believe or not to believe, treating all religions on an even platform,” he argued.
The petition asserts that Sharia-based inheritance laws discriminate against Muslim women and violate fundamental rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution. It states, “A person who does not follow the tenets of Islam should not be forced to be governed by its personal law,” and calls for judicial intervention to fill the legal void.
Safiya PM, a 51-year-old activist from Kerala’s Alappuzha district, identifies as an “ex-Muslim” and serves as the general secretary of the Kerala Ex-Muslims organisation, founded in 2020. Her legal challenge has propelled her into the national spotlight as she seeks equal property rights for Muslim women who renounce their faith.
Divorced since 2004, she raised her now 25-year-old daughter alone. “I was born to Muslim parents, but my religion was assigned to me at birth. I relinquished Islam and joined the Ex-Muslims of Kerala movement four years ago,” she explained. Her father, U A Muhammad, a 71-year-old atheist and communist, also supports her plea.
Safiya claims that Muslim Personal Law prevents her from leaving her entire estate to her daughter. Under Sharia, a Muslim woman can inherit only half of what a male counterpart receives, and in cases where she is the sole heir, part of the inheritance is still allocated to male relatives.
“My father cannot legally distribute his property equally between my brother and me. Similarly, I cannot leave my entire property to my daughter. This is an issue of constitutional equality,” she stated, emphasising her support for the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) to ensure gender-equal inheritance rights.
The case has rekindled discussions around religious inheritance laws and their impact on those who renounce their faith. The Supreme Court acknowledged the need for legal clarity, noting that “official forms may need amendments to provide an option not to disclose one’s religion.” Justice Viswanathan emphasised that the choice of religion should be treated as a private right.
Solicitor General Mehta acknowledged the complexity of the case and assured the court of a “well-considered” response. The Centre is expected to file its affidavit addressing whether the exclusion of Muslims from the Indian Succession Act can be constitutionally upheld.
The Supreme Court had previously agreed in April 2024 to examine whether Muslims could opt for a secular law for wills and inheritance. A bench led by then-Chief Justice DY Chandrachud had issued notices to the Union and Kerala governments, calling the issue “important.”
Advocate Padmanabhan reiterated that the court must uphold secular principles and ensure that renouncing a religion does not strip individuals of their inheritance rights.
In previous hearings, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati had argued that amending the Indian Succession Act to include Muslims would require legislative action by Parliament.
The case also brings Islamic inheritance laws under scrutiny. Quranic verses from Surah Nisa outline specific shares of inheritance for men and women, with men receiving twice the share of women. Islam mandates that a husband provide for his wife and family, which is cited as a justification for the gender-based inheritance division.
Critics, including ex-Muslims and activists like Safiya, argue that such laws are discriminatory. “If a religion tells you that you have only half the rights of a man, why should you follow it?” she questioned.
A recent RTI query revealed that many Muslims are opting to register marriages under the Special Marriage Act to bypass discriminatory inheritance laws. However, Safiya contends that even this does not fully resolve the legal issues, as the Indian Succession Act still explicitly excludes Muslims.
