The Supreme Court of India on Thursday took a significant step toward examining the constitutional validity of gender-based inheritance laws under the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937. A three-judge bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, issued a formal notice to the Union Ministry of Minority Affairs seeking a response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) alleging that certain provisions of the colonial-era law are “manifestly discriminatory” against women.
The petitioners, Poulomi Pavini Shukla and the Nyaya Naari Foundation, argue that the current legal framework governing succession for Muslims in India frequently grants women only half—or in some cases, less than half—of the inheritance share allocated to their male counterparts.
Appearing for the petitioners, senior advocate Prashant Bhushan contended that the 1937 Act stands in direct violation of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to equality. The core of the legal challenge rests on the assertion that inheritance and succession are essentially civil matters rather than “essential religious practices” that would otherwise enjoy protection under Article 25 (freedom of religion).
“Saying women will get half or even less than half compared to male counterparts is discriminatory,” Bhushan told the bench, which also included Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi.
The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, was enacted to ensure that Muslims are governed by Islamic law in personal matters such as marriage, succession, and inheritance. However, the petitioners argue that while religious freedom is a fundamental right, it cannot supersede the constitutional mandate of gender equality in civil and property-related affairs.
By seeking the Centre’s response, the Supreme Court has signaled its intent to scrutinize whether personal laws can be shielded from constitutional scrutiny if they result in the unequal treatment of citizens based on gender.
The Union Ministry of Minority Affairs is now expected to file its counter-affidavit, outlining the government’s stance on whether these decades-old provisions require a constitutional overhaul to align with modern equality standards.
