Sharia Court Cannot Legally Alter Marital Status Or Grant Divorce: Chhattisgarh HC

Bilaspur: The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur has held that an order passed by a self-styled "Idara-E-Shariya Islami Court" declaring a Muslim woman divorced by Triple Talaq is without legal authority and incapable of altering her marital status, ruling that such private religious bodies cannot function as courts or issue binding adjudications on the civil or matrimonial rights of individuals.

Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad was hearing a writ petition filed by a Muslim woman challenging an order passed by the Idara-E-Shariya Islami Court, which purported to record that the Court had granted her Triple Talaq/divorce. The petitioner also challenged the very existence of the institution as being in violation of the Constitution, the fundamental right to life and liberty, and the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.

As per the facts, the petitioner's first husband had passed away in 2015, after which she was married to Respondent No. 10 in 2020. It was alleged that Respondent No. 10 pronounced Talaq-e-Hasan upon her in three phases through communications dated 31.08.2021, 30.09.2021 and 30.10.2021, purportedly because her children from her first marriage could not adjust with the new family. The petitioner had separately lodged a complaint alleging harassment and cruelty, leading to registration of FIR No. 118/2021 under Sections 498-A and 34 of the IPC at Mahila Thana, Raipur. Despite these proceedings being pending, Respondent No. 9 went on to pass the impugned order recording that the petitioner had been divorced by Triple Talaq, which she received on 21.01.2022.

Counsel for the State submitted that the Indian constitutional and legal framework does not recognize any parallel judicial system based on religion, and that bodies styling themselves as "Sharia Courts" or "Darul Qaza" have no statutory recognition or judicial authority, with any decision issued by them carrying no binding or enforceable legal weight. It was further submitted that Respondent No. 9 had projected itself as a court — by using the word "Court" in its name, displaying a scales-of-justice emblem, recording statements, taking evidence, and terming its outcome a "judgement" and that such conduct, if unchecked, risked emboldening a parallel system of justice delivery. Respondent No. 9, in its return, however maintained that it was purely a religious and advisory institution that did not claim any legal status as a court, and that its order was only a religious declaration and not a legal instrument.

The Court extensively relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Vishwa Lochan Madan v. Union of India, which held that adjudicatory power must flow from a validly enacted law and that a Dar-ul-Qaza, being neither created nor sanctioned by law, cannot issue anything amounting to adjudication under a judicial system recognised by law. The Supreme Court had clarified that a fatwa is merely an opinion, not a decree, and is not binding on the courts, the State or any individual, and cannot be enforced through coercive process, while cautioning that no such body should issue a verdict touching upon an individual's rights or status unless sought by that individual.

Applying these principles, the Court held that Respondent No. 9 could not be recognised as a court constituted under the Constitution or any statute, and had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the petitioner's marital status. The impugned order dated 18.01.2022 was accordingly held to be, at best, a communication or religious opinion from a private body, incapable of creating, extinguishing or altering any legally enforceable right or status of the petitioner.

The Court clarified that it was not, in these proceedings, pronouncing on the larger constitutional validity of Talaq-e-Hasan, noting that related questions were pending before the Supreme Court in Benazeer Heena v. Union of India, and that all such questions were left open to be considered by the competent court. It also clarified that its order would not prejudice the pending criminal proceedings arising from the FIR or any other statutory remedy available to the petitioner.

The writ petition was accordingly allowed in part. The order dated 18.01.2022 issued by Respondent No. 9, insofar as it purported to determine or declare the petitioner's marital status or dissolve her marriage, was declared to be without legal authority. The Court further held that Respondent No. 9 has no jurisdiction to function as a court and that any opinion or decision issued by it cannot be enforced by coercive process or treated as a binding adjudication of civil or matrimonial rights. 

The Court observed that “no religious institution or private body can be permitted to assume the authority of a Court established by law.”

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of in the above terms.

Appearances:

Shri Devershi Thakur, Advocate for the Petitioner; Shri Abhishek Banjare, Central Government Counsel for Respondent No. 1; Shri R.K. Gupta, Addl. AG for the State/Respondent Nos. 2 to 8; Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Senior Advocate with Shri Ali Afzaal Mirza, Advocates for Respondent No. 10.

Case Title: [Petitioner's name redacted in the judgment] vs. Union of India & Ors., WPC No. 795 of 2022