Refusing protection to a married Muslim woman involved in a live-in relationship with a Hindu man, the Allahabad High Court emphasised that a legally wedded Muslim wife is bound within the confines of marriage. The court asserted that her cohabitation with another man amounts to fornication, deemed forbidden by Allah as per Sharia law. The court dismissed a petition from the woman and her live-in partner, who sought protection, citing threats from her father and relatives. Justice Renu Agarwal stated the court cannot support and protect her perceived ‘criminal’ actions.

Noting that the petitioner lacked a divorce decree from her husband and was involved in a live-in arrangement, the court emphasised that she was violating the provisions of Muslim Law (Shariat). According to the court, as reported in the Deccan Herald, a legally wedded wife stepping outside the bounds of marriage is considered ‘Zina’ (fornication) and ‘Haram’ (forbidden by Allah). The petitioners claimed the woman’s family interfered in their peaceful live-in relationship. The woman, initially married to Mohsin, who has since remarried, faced abuse and opted to reside with a Hindu man. The state’s counsel opposed her plea, arguing that without a divorce decree, her relationship amounted to adultery and could not be protected by law. The court, in its February 23 judgment, emphasised that since the woman did not apply to convert her religion or obtain a divorce, she was not entitled to legal protection.

Duplicity of courts

Courts have maintained duplicity when it comes to hearing cases involving minorities, especially Muslims and those involving the “majority” Hindus. A few years ago, the same courts decriminalised adultery. Heck, even our Hindu traditions are not sacrosanct anymore. 

Hindu Samaj had to prove that Ayodhya was the birthplace of Rama, and we had to have our religious traditions interfered with by the courts. Let’s take a few cases related to Hindus where courts made it a point to interfere.

Sabarimala women ‘entry’: The Supreme Court in 2018 upheld the 2006 PIL filed by the Indian Young Lawyers Association and overturned the timeless tradition of women between ages 10 and 50 abstaining from visiting the Sabarimala temple, where Sri Ayyappa manifests as a ‘Naishtika Brahmachari’ (eternal celibate). In so doing, the 5-judge bench also ignored the arguments of the temple tanri (head priest), Travancore Devaswom Board (the Government-controlled body that manages the temple), the Pandalam royal family, and the group’ People For Dharma’, which represented the millions of silent Ayyappa devotees.

Entry of women at Shani Shingnapur temple: In 2016, the Bombay High Court ruled that women cannot be barred from entering the core shrine area of Shani Shingnapur temple in Maharashtra, backing petitions challenging the traditional ban on women. It ‘ended’ a 400-year-old custom that barred women from entering the temple and praying in the sanctum sanctorum dedicated to Shani Bhagwan. The court had said, “There is no law which prevents women from having equal access from entering a temple. If men are allowed, then women should also be allowed.” 

Sabarimala priest selection: Petitioners argued that the requirement that Malayali Brahmins be appointed only as Melshantis was an example of casteism and untouchability. They claimed that fundamental constitutional principles were in danger. They were directly meddling with the rights of Hindus and Hindu religious practices. 

Thankfully, in this case, the court ruled favouring the Hindus. 

However, when it comes to anything remotely related to Muslims, they seem to be bending over to adhere to “Sharia”. For example, in the Nupur Sharma case – the sitting bench accused her of having a “loose tongue”. So much for freedom of speech, freedom of speaking facts. The court held her responsible for the violence across the country after her video was made viral by none other than alleged fact-checker Zubair. She was asked by the court to apologise to the nation, and the court even reprimanded the Police for being reluctant to arrest her. Amazing. 

This raises the question once again – do our courts adhere to Sharia principles or the Constitution?