Context: The Supreme Court is considering a case in which a non-believing Muslim woman has requested to be governed by the Indian Succession Act (ISA) instead of Sharia law, due to the inequitable inheritance provisions under the latter. 

• This case raises complex issues about the intersection of personal and secular law, individual freedom, and religious practices in India.

Key highlights

• Petitioner’s Case: The petition was filed by Safiya P.M., a woman from Kerala, who, born a Muslim, now identifies as a non-believer and seeks to be governed by the secular Indian Succession Act rather than Sharia law.

• Equality Across Faiths: CJI emphasized that secular inheritance laws should be applicable universally, irrespective of faith, noting that if one religion is governed by secular laws, all religions must follow the same principle.

• Hindu Succession Act Issue: CJI pointed out that under the Hindu Succession Act, converting from Hinduism results in losing inheritance rights, which Safiya argued should not apply to someone who renounces their faith.

• Will as a Solution: Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta argued that inheritance through a Will is still possible, despite restrictions in the Hindu Succession Act.

• Intestate Succession Consideration: The CJI highlighted issues with intestate successions (without a Will) and the complexities of joint Hindu family property, which may complicate the inheritance process.

• Union’s Response: The Union Government was asked to file a counter-affidavit in response to the petition, as the issue raised was significant and required careful consideration.

• Religion in Official Forms: CJI suggested that if the petition succeeds, there should be an option to not mention religion on official forms, offering an individual’s right to waive or omit religion as a private matter.

• Advocate’s Argument: Advocate Prashant Padmanabhan argued that Safiya, as a non-believer, should not face any disqualification in inheritance rights or other civil rights due to her religious choice, invoking secularism under the Constitution.

• Inheritance Under Muslim Law: Safiya argued that under Muslim law, she would inherit only one-third of her father’s property, while also caring for her autistic brother. This limitation, combined with her renunciation of faith, further complicates her inheritance.

• Legal Vacuum: Safiya’s petition highlighted a legal vacuum, where even if she obtained a “no-religion, no-caste” certificate, she still faced barriers to inheriting her parental property, violating her fundamental right to belief under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution

Key Legal and Social Implications

• Freedom to Choose Succession Law: The court ruled that if a non-believing Muslim can choose secular law, non-believers of all faiths should have the same freedom, which could lead to a uniform succession law for all.

• Challenges to Uniform Succession Law: The shift to secular law in inheritance is complicated by existing personal laws, such as Hindu law, which denies inheritance rights to converts, creating a challenge for uniformity.

• Intergenerational Conflicts: Resistance may arise from older generations in religious families, who may oppose the choice of younger non-believers to opt for secular law, especially when it contradicts traditional beliefs about inheritance.

Freedom of Choice vs. Religious Law

• Clashing Freedoms: The case highlights a conflict between individual freedom to choose secular law and the collective belief systems of religious communities, raising questions about whose freedom should take precedence.

• Equity in Inheritance: The non-believing woman’s case reflects concerns over inequity in inheritance under Sharia law, where women inherit less than men, and her desire for an equitable system under the ISA, which grants women full ownership of property.

• Larger Vision of Equality: The Supreme Court’s ruling reflects a broader vision of democracy, where individuals have the freedom to make choices, but practical and peaceful steps must be taken to reconcile diverse views on equality and freedom in India.