A judgment that will have far-reaching implications for India’s legal landscape, the Supreme Court of India ruled that so-called Islamic judicial bodies like the Sharia Court, Darul-Qaza, Court of Qazi, or Kajiyat, have no legal standing under Indian law. The verdict came on April 28, 2025, in a case filed by a Muslim woman, Shahjahan, who was denied maintenance by her husband and subsequently by both the Family Court and the Allahabad High Court.
But this was not just about maintenance. The case struck at a much deeper issue: Can an Islamic court operating outside India’s formal judicial structure override rights protected by Indian law?
The Supreme Court’s answer was a firm no.
Woman behind the case: Shahjahan’s struggle
Shahjahan, a Muslim woman from Uttar Pradesh, had a difficult journey. She married Gaffar Khan, a Border Security Force (BSF) personnel, in 2002. Both were in their second marriages. They had two children together, but the relationship soured quickly.
Shahjahan alleged that her husband assaulted her, demanded dowry, including a motorcycle and Rs 50,000 and eventually threw her and their children out of the house in May 2008. Before this, in 2005, Gaffar had already approached a Court of Qazi in Bhopal, seeking divorce. There, the couple had entered into a so-called “compromise” to continue living together.
But things only deteriorated further. In 2008, Gaffar returned to the Darul-Qaza, another Islamic arbitration body and obtained a talaqnama (divorce document). Relying on this Sharia court document, he refused to provide financial support to his wife.
Shahjahan, illiterate and without any source of income, approached the Family Court asking for Rs 5,000 per month for herself and Rs 1,000 each for their children. Shockingly, the Family Court dismissed her plea for personal maintenance, saying she had left the home of her own volition and that her second marriage nullified any dowry demands. The Allahabad High Court upheld this bizarre conclusion, leaving Shahjahan without support.
Supreme Court ruling that went beyond one case
In 2025, the Supreme Court stepped in. A bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah not only reversed the Allahabad High Court’s decision but also used the case to make an important constitutional declaration.
The apex court granted Shahjahan Rs 4,000 per month as maintenance, effective from the day she first filed her petition. It also ordered that Gaffar continue supporting their children financially until they reach adulthood. But beyond individual relief, the court went on to clarify the legal position of Islamic arbitration bodies in India.
The court made it unequivocally clear: “‘Court of Kazi’, ‘Court of (Darul Kaja) Kajiyat’, ‘Sharia Court’, etcetera, by whatever name styled, have no recognition in law.”
Why this ruling matters: Constitution vs parallel Judicial systems
India is a secular, democratic republic with a well-established judicial system governed by the Constitution. However, in the shadows, Islamic bodies like the Darul-Qaza often function as informal “courts” offering religious arbitration. While people may voluntarily approach such bodies, their rulings have no legal standing and cannot override Indian statutory law, especially in matters like maintenance, marriage, and divorce.
The Supreme Court cited a critical precedent: the 2014 Vishwa Lochan Madan vs Union of India case. In that ruling, the court had observed that fatwas and Darul-Qaza decisions are not enforceable under the law. They have no legal sanction and cannot be imposed on anyone using coercive methods. A fatwa, the court had said, is merely an opinion, “not a decree, not binding on any court or individual, and certainly not on the State.”
This is crucial because despite lacking legal validity, many families, particularly women are pressured into abiding by these religious verdicts. And sometimes, shockingly, even statutory courts end up relying on such non-judicial “settlements,” as the Family Court and the Allahabad High Court did in Shahjahan’s case.
Criticising the lower courts: An eye-opener
The Supreme Court strongly criticised the lower courts. It slammed the Family Court for assuming, without any basis, that Shahjahan left the marital home without reason and for ruling out dowry demands just because it was the couple’s second marriage.
“The observation that dowry demand is unlikely in a second marriage is unknown to the canons of law,” the apex court remarked bluntly.
Furthermore, the bench pointed out that courts cannot rely on religious bodies like Sharia courts to determine someone’s rights under Indian law. Even if parties agree to a religious verdict, it is only valid between them and only if it does not violate any law.
The bigger problem: Normalisation of Sharia Courts in India
This judgment comes at a time when Sharia courts are not just operating, but expanding. In 2023, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) publicly stated that there are over 100 Sharia courts in India, with plans to establish one in every Muslim-majority district.
In 2020, political figures from AIMIM openly encouraged Muslims to reject the Indian judiciary and instead resolve disputes through Sharia courts. Former Vice President of India, Hamid Ansari, too, had supported the idea of establishing Sharia courts across districts, citing the community’s right to practice personal law.
As recently as April 14, 2025, Jharkhand minister Hafizul Hasan openly declared that for him, “Sharia comes before the Constitution.” He further added, “Muslims carry the Quran in their hearts and the Constitution in their hands,” a statement critics say exposes a dual loyalty that conflicts with India’s secular legal structure.
A wake-up call for Indian secularism
What this case underlines is the danger of legitimising parallel judicial systems. When lower courts begin to rely on declarations from bodies like the Darul-Qaza, it effectively undermines the authority of the Indian judiciary. The Supreme Court’s firm intervention, therefore, was not only timely, it was necessary.
The ruling reaffirmed that only statutory courts established under the Indian Constitution have the authority to adjudicate legal disputes. Any ruling, compromise, or talaqnama issued by an Islamic body is simply a private agreement unless it’s legally registered and validated under Indian law.
Justice restored, but the fight isn’t over
The Supreme Court’s verdict in Shahjahan vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Others is not just a win for one woman, it’s a reassertion of India’s constitutional values. It reminds us that religious customs, cannot supersede the rights guaranteed by the law of the land.
At its heart, the judgment upholds two key ideas: equal protection under the law, and one nation, one legal system. In doing so, it has sent a powerful message no parallel judiciary can coexist in a democratic republic.
Comments