The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Centre to clarify its position on a plea by Safiya P M, a member of “Ex-Muslims of Kerala,” who seeks to be governed by the Indian Succession Act rather than Shariat law. The plea was presented before a bench led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, along with Justices Sanjay Kumar and K V Viswanathan.
Safiya, from Alappuzha, Kerala, argues that although she remains legally Muslim, her personal beliefs are non-religious and she wishes to opt out of the Muslim personal law. She advocates for her right under Article 25 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of religion, asserting it should also include the “right not to believe.”
Represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, the Centre described the issue as “interesting,” prompting the court to request a detailed response. The bench directed the government to submit a counter affidavit within four weeks, scheduling the next hearing for the week of May 5.
This case brings to light broader issues concerning personal law and fundamental rights in India. Safiya’s petition, filed through advocate Prashant Padmanabhan, claims that under Shariat law, Muslim women are entitled to only one-third of the property. She seeks a judicial declaration that she is not governed by Muslim personal law, enabling her father to bequeath more than the stipulated share.
The apex court had previously allowed Safiya to amend her petition to challenge specific provisions of the Indian Succession Act and other laws that exclude Muslims. Her plea emphasizes the need for legal recognition of individuals who choose to disassociate from their faith, particularly concerning inheritance and other significant civil rights.
Highlighting potential national implications, the petition points out the discrimination faced by those who leave Islam, as per Sharia law, which includes exclusion from community and inheritance rights. Safiya also expressed concerns about the impact of these laws on her daughter’s inheritance rights if she were to formally renounce her religion.
The plea underscores a legislative gap that fails to protect those who declare no religion, arguing that the absence of such protection renders Article 25’s guarantee to freely practice or abandon a religion ineffective.
