The Supreme Court agreed on Wednesday to review the constitutional validity of uncodified Muslim personal law governing inheritance, issuing formal notices to the Union government on a plea that challenges rules granting women half the property share of male heirs.
A bench presided over by Chief Justice Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana sought responses from the Ministry of Law and Justice as well as the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports. The notices were issued on a public interest litigation moved by Imtiazhussain Shahabuddin Mulla seeking an authoritative ruling on equal succession rights for Muslim women.
Constitutional Challenge to Succession Norms
Appearing for the petitioner, advocates M. Singh and Anil C. Nishani contended that the existing intestate succession regime institutionalises discrimination against female heirs in family and ancestral property. They argued that allocating women lesser inheritance solely because of their sex infringes upon their fundamental rights to equality, non-discrimination, and personal liberty guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution.
Drawing upon the precedent set in the landmark Shayara Bano case, Nishani submitted that personal laws do not enjoy blanket immunity from judicial review, particularly when they lead to manifest arbitrariness. The plea asked the court to declare that any rule or practice under Muslim personal law that accords unequal inheritance rights based on gender is unconstitutional and unenforceable.
Statutory Framework and Property Rights
The petition specifically targets the interaction between uncodified religious customs and statutory law under the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act of 1937. Under Section 2 of the 1937 statute, Muslim personal law is designated as the mandatory rule of decision for intestate succession, regardless of conflicting customs.
According to the plea, this statutory mechanism accords legal backing and judicial enforcement to succession practices while leaving the underlying substantive rules uncodified. The petition argued that this structure creates a significant constitutional question: whether state-backed rules determining proprietary rights can continue to operate when they produce unequal legal consequences on the basis of sex.
Comparison With Hindu Succession Reforms
The petition also highlighted the absence of statutory safeguards for Muslim women analogous to protections available under other personal laws. It pointed out that Muslim succession law lacks any concept equivalent to coparcenary under the Hindu Succession Act, where the 2005 legislative amendment formally granted daughters an equal right by birth in ancestral property.
Arguing that the absence of parallel legislative reform has widened proprietary disparities, the petitioner urged the apex court to intervene and direct that Muslim women are entitled to complete parity in ancestral and family property succession in accordance with constitutional principles.
