India, Republic of
*Please note this is just a draft and all contents are still under revision.*
|
Legal System/History |
The
legal system is based in part on English common law. Sources of Muslim
personal law as applied in India are Hanafi fiqh along with some resort to other schools, legislation, precedent,
certain juridical texts (both classical and modern) that are considered
authoritative, and custom. Under
the British Raj, colonial courts were directed to apply "indigenous
legal norms" in matters relating to family law and religion, with
"native law officers" serving as expert advisers. A number of
Hanafi sources were translated into English and the advisory positions
of legal experts on Hindu and Muslim law were abolished in 1864. Legal
commentators on the development of the indigenous system of "Anglo-Muhammadan" law attach varying degrees of significance to the subsequently
authoritative position of these works (and the quality of the translations),
the absence of judicial expertise in Muslim law, the introduction of English
legal principles and procedures, and the position taken on customary law. The
status of minority communities’ personal laws has been the subject of
great debate. Article 44 of the Constitution, a Directive Provision legislating
the aim of establishing legal uniformity in India, particularly with reference
to a uniform civil code, is considered a threat by some, as the norm is
for all religious communities to be governed by their own personal laws
in family matters. |
|
School(s) of Fiqh |
Hanafi
majority, sizeable Shafi’i, Ja’fari and Isma’ili minorities; other than
Muslims, Sikh, Jain, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Christian and Jewish minorities
|
|
Constitutional Status of Islam(ic) Law
|
Constitution
adopted 26th Nov. 1949, amended many times. The preamble affirms
the secularity of the State. Article 26 guarantees freedom to manage religious
affairs for every recognised religious denomination or sect. The difficulty
in reconciling the constitutional protection of the rights of religious
minorities and the Directive Provision of Article 44 has meant that legal
uniformity is far from being achieved. |
|
Court System |
Muslim
personal law applied by regular court system. Four levels of courts: civil
courts, district courts in administrative subdivisions of each state,
State High Courts in each of the 18 states and the Supreme Court. Courts
of first instance in personal status cases are Family Courts, organised
under Family Courts Act 1984. These Courts have same jurisdiction as any
district or subordinate civil court, thus also have some criminal jurisdiction
with relation to maintenance orders. |
|
Relevant Legislation |
Bihar
& West Bengal Registration of Muhammedan Marriages Acts 1876 Guardians
and Wards Act 1890 Child
Marriage Restraint Act 1929 Muslim
Personal Law (Shari’at) Application
Act 1937 Dissolution
of Muslim Marriages Act 1939 Special
Marriage Act 1954 Family
Courts Act 1984 Muslim
Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986 |
|
Notable Features |
Marriage Age: 21 for males and 18 for
females; penal sanctions for contracting under-age marriages, though
such unions remain valid Marriage Guardianship: governed by classical law Marriage Registration: registration is voluntary;
other evidence may be supplied in order to prove the existence of an unregistered
marriage Polygamy: governed by classical law,
however Indian Criminal Procedure Code provides that a woman refusing
to live with her husband on just grounds is still entitled to maintenance,
and just grounds expressly include the husband’s contracting of a polygamous
marriage; in Itwari v. Asghari (AIR
1960 All 684) onus was put on husband to prove that his subsequent marriage
did not constitute insult or cruelty to first wife, and court shouldn’t
enforce restitution of conjugal rights under such circumstances Obedience/Maintenance: governed by classical law
Talaq: governed by classical law Judicial Divorce: grounds on which women
may seek divorce include: desertion for four years, failure to maintain
for two years, husband’s imprisonment for seven years, husband’s failure
to perform marital obligations for three years, husband’s continued impotence
from the time of the marriage, husband’s insanity for two years or his
serious illness, wife’s exercise of her option of puberty if she was contracted
into marriage by any guardian before age of 15 and repudiates the marriage
before the age of 18 (as long as the marriage was not consummated), husband’s
cruelty (including physical or other mistreatment, unequal treatment of
co-wives), and any other ground recognised as valid for the dissolution
of marriage under Muslim law Post-Divorce Maintenance/Financial
Arrangements: came under sections 125-128 of Criminal Procedure
Code which provides that dependants (including divorcées) unable to support
themselves are entitled to maintenance; after 1986 Muslim Women (Protection
of Rights on Divorce) Act, Muslims do not necessarily come under the ambit
of the Criminal Procedure Code (unless they choose to be governed by it),
rather, under new Act, obligation of Muslim husband to provide his former
wife with "reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to be made
and paid to her within the ‘idda
period by her former husband" is affirmed; in Muhammad Ahmad Khan v. Shah Bano (AIR 1985 SC 945) court held there
is no conflict between classical Hanafi requirement of maintaining divorced
wife during ‘idda period, and
obligation of maintaining former wife unable to support herself so long
as she remains a divorcée (status terminated by remarriage or death);
ruling met with much agitation by certain Muslim groups arguing that it
constituted undue interference in Islamic personal status laws; led to
passage of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce Act) 1986; in
Ali v. Sufaira (1988 (2) KLT) Kerala High Court rejected a narrow
interpretation of 1986 legislation that would confine former husband’s
maintenance obligations to his ex-wife’s ‘idda period; ruling has since been confirmed by large number of
judgements Child Custody: general rule is that divorcée
is entitled to custody of children until age of 7 for males (classical
Hanafi position) and puberty for females, subject to classical conditions,
though there is some flexibility as ward’s best interests are considered
paramount under terms of Guardians and Wards Act 1890 Succession: governed by classical law
although customary law may predominate under certain circumstances |
|
Law/Case Reporting System |
All
India Reporter, Indian Law Reports, Supreme Court Reports, and state law
reports (e.g., Kerala Law Times) |
|
International Conventions (with Relevant Reservations) & Reports to Treaty Governing Bodies |
ICCPR
& ICESCR – accession 1979 with interpretative declarations regarding
common Art. 1, Arts. 9 & 13 of ICCPR, and Arts. 4, 8 & 7(c) of
ICESCR CEDAW
– signature 1980, ratification 1993 with declarations relating to Arts.
5(a), 16(1) & 16(2) and reservation to Art. 29(1) CRC
– accession 1992 with declaration relating to Art. 32, especially 32(2)(a)
|
Legal History:
The Indian legal system is
based in part on the English common law system. With respect to Muslim personal
law as applied in India, the sources of law are Hanafi fiqh along with some resort to other schools, legislation, precedent,
certain juridical texts (both classical and modern) that are considered authoritative,
and custom.
During the British Raj, the colonial courts were directed
to apply "indigenous legal norms" in matters relating to family law
and religion, with "native law officers" advising the courts on the
determination of those norms. A number of Hanafi sources (notably al-Hidaya and the Fatawa Alamgiri) were translated into English.
The advisory positions of legal experts on Hindu and Muslim law were abolished
in 1864. Legal commentators on the development of the indigenous system of "Anglo-Muhammadan" law (now more commonly referred to as Indo-Muslim law) attach
varying degrees of significance to the subsequently authoritative position of
these works (and the quality of the translations), the absence of judicial expertise
in Muslim law, the introduction of principles of English law and procedure through
judges trained in the English legal tradition and through interpretation of
the residual formula of ‘justice and right’ or ‘justice, equity and good conscience’
to imply mainly English law, and to the position taken on customary law.
The status of the personal laws of minority communities,
and the plurality of religious laws in general, is much debated in India. Article
44 of the Constitution legislates a commitment to the gradual establishment
of legal uniformity in India, the aim being that the state "shall endeavour
to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of
India." This directive is considered a threat by elements of religious
minority communities, who continue to be governed by their own personal laws
in family matters, as applied within the superstructure of the Indian legal
system.
Schools of Fiqh: The predominant madhhab is the Hanafi, with sizeable Shafi’i, Ja’fari and Isma’ili
minorities. India’s minority religious communities also include Sikhs, Jains,
Buddhists, Christians and Jews.
Constitutional Status of Islam(ic
Law): The Indian Constitution was adopted on 26th November 1949 and
has been amended many times. The preamble of the Constitution affirms that India
is a "sovereign socialist secular democratic republic". India’s secularity
is framed in terms of neither favouring nor officially adopting any particular
religion, and Article 26 guarantees the freedom to manage religious affairs
(subject to constraints imposed by the requirements of public order, morality
and health) for every recognised religious denomination or sect. The aforementioned Article 44 of the Constitution
contains the Directive Provision stating that Indian legislators shall aim to
establish a uniform civil code throughout India. For the time-being, religious
communities continue to be governed by their own personal laws (apart from Muslims,
this applies to Christians, Zoroastrians, Jews and Hindus, as well as Buddhists
and Sikhs who, for legal purposes, are classified as Hindus). Although the option
of civil marriage exists, it is not often the only regime under which Indians
marry. The difficulty of reconciling the secularity of the Republic and the
objective of establishing legal uniformity with the protection of minority rights
(also enshrined in the Constitution) has meant that, almost fifty years since
the adoption of the Constitution, the goal of the directive principle in Article
44 is still far from being realised.
Court System: Muslim personal law is applied
by the regular court system. As the majority of Muslims are Hanafi, courts presume
that litigants are Hanafi unless the contrary is established.
There
are four levels of courts in the judiciary. The first are civil courts with
jurisdiction over arbitration, marriage and divorce, guardianship, probate,
etc. The next level of courts is established in the subdivisions of each state,
at the district level. Each district comes under the jurisdiction of a principal
district civil court presided over by a district judge. There are State High
Courts in each of the 18 states of the federation. The Supreme Court is constituted
by one Chief Justice and not more than 17 judges.
The courts of first instance for personal status are
generally the Family Courts, organised under the Family Courts Act of 1984.
The Family Courts are deemed to be the equivalent of any district or subordinate
civil court. Their jurisdiction is enumerated in the Act and covers suits for
decrees of nullity, restitution of conjugal rights, judicial separation or dissolution,
validity of marriage, matrimonial property, orders or injunctions arising out
of the circumstances of marriage, legitimacy, maintenance, guardianship, custody,
and access to minors. These courts have some criminal jurisdiction in terms
of maintenance orders. Suits in these courts may be held in camera
if the Family Court so desires or at the request of the parties to the case.
Notable Features:* With the exception of some
enactments, most of the personal law applicable to Indian Muslims is uncodified
and administered by state courts on the basis of Indo-Muslim judicial precedents.
With one exception, the legislation regulating Islamic family law dates from
the period of British colonial rule.
The Muslim Personal Law (Shari’at) Application Act 1937 directs the application of Muslim Personal
Law to Muslims in a number of different areas mainly related to family law.
The Act also directs the application of Muslim personal law in matters relating
to intestate succession among Muslims. On the matter of Islamic inheritance
law, as the Qur’an provides a systematic scheme for intestate succession, there
has been no particular legislation in that area. The courts generally apply
the classical rules relating to intestate succession.
The Child Marriage Restraint Act 1929 introduced under
the British provided penal sanctions for contracting marriages below the specified
minimum age, originally established at 18 and 15 years. As the Act currently
stands in India (amended by Act 2 of 1978), the minimum marriage age is 21 for
men and 18 for women. However, as registration is not compulsory in India, and
as the Act does not instruct the dissolution of under-age marriages, such unions
are not rendered invalid.
The Registration of Muhammedan Marriages and Divorces
Act 1876 is still in operation in Bihar and West Bengal. Other states of the
federation also have similar Acts, and there are facilities for voluntary registration.
However, registration is not a requirement in India. The option of registering
a marriage under the Special Marriage Act 1954 (under which all inter-religious
marriages must be registered) also exists, in which case a different set of
secular marriage and divorce laws would apply; it does not, however, appear
to be very common to do so in practice. Registration may prove useful if recourse
is had to the courts, but because it is not compulsory, other evidence may be
used to prove the existence of an unregistered marriage. Upon signature to the
CEDAW, India submitted a declaration affirming the government’s commitment to
the principle of obligatory registration of marriage, but stating that, for
the present, the diversity and size of India’s population make strict adherence
to this principle impractical.
With regard to polygamy, the Criminal Procedure Code
establishes that a woman who refuses to live with her husband on just grounds
will still be entitled to maintenance and those just grounds, as defined in
the Code, include the contracting of a polygamous marriage by the husband, even
if the personal law applicable to the parties permits polygamy. This proviso
only actually applies to Muslims as polygamy has been abolished for all other
communities. In Itwari v. Asghari
(AIR 1960 All 684), a suit for the restitution of conjugal rights by a Muslim
husband against his first wife, the Allahabad Court stated that the onus was
on the husband to prove that his second marriage did not constitute any insult
or cruelty to the first wife. Although the Muslim husband has the right to contract
a polygamous marriage, the Court held that it does not necessarily follow that
the first wife should be forced to live with him under threat of severe penalties
after the husband has taken a second wife. Even in the absence of proof of cruelty,
the Court would not pass a decree for restitution of conjugal rights if it appeared
that it would be unjust and inequitable to compel her to return to her husband
under the circumstances of the case.
The Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act 1939 introduced
changes to the extremely restricted Hanafi rules on judicial divorce at the
petition of the wife by the adoption and adaptation of certain Maliki principles.
The nine grounds upon which a woman is entitled to obtain a decree of dissolution
of her marriage under the Act are as follows: if the husband’s whereabouts have
not been known for four years; if the husband neglects to maintain the wife
for two years; if the husband has been sentenced to seven or more years’ imprisonment;
if the husband has failed to perform his marital obligations for three years;
if the husband was impotent at the time of marriage and continues to be so;
if the husband has been insane for a period of two years or suffers from a serious
illness harmful to the wife; if the wife was contracted into marriage by her
father or other guardian before the age of 15 and repudiates the marriage before
she becomes 18 (provided the marriage has not been consummated); if the husband
treats her with cruelty (including physical or other ill-treatment or unequal
treatment of co-wives); and any other ground which is recognised as valid for
the dissolution of marriage under Muslim law. On the other hand, apostasy by
the Muslim wife, including conversion to another religion, does not in and of
itself dissolve her marriage. The Act expressly extends the option of puberty
to women who were contracted into marriage as minors by their fathers or paternal
grandfathers, broadening the classical Hanafi rules. There has, however, been
no substantial reform of the classical law relating to talaq.
The Muslim husband retains the right to repudiate his wife extra-judicially,
and from the available sources it appears that the most common form of divorce
is the triple talaq. The stance of
the pre- and post-independence courts has generally been to accept extra-judicial
repudiation as "good in law, bad in theology". A major issue of concern
is the determination of the time from which maintenance becomes due in cases
where the talaq has not been communicated
to the wife, but the validity of such repudiations has not been called into
serious question. Pearl and Menski also note that the scarcity of case law reflects
the fact that, in actual practice, the exercise of talaq
doesn’t often involve the courts.
With regard to maintenance upon divorce, classical
Hanafi law has been modified in India by the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights
on Divorce) Act 1986, passed following fierce protest by sectors of the Muslim
community that viewed the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Shah Bano case as a
gross interference in matters of Muslim personal status. In Mohammad Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum
(AIR 1985 SC 945), the Supreme Court ruled that there was no conflict between
classical Hanafi law, which only specifies the obligation to maintain a wife
during her ‘idda period, and the requirement
to support a former wife unable to maintain herself established by state legislation.
During the aftermath of the controversial judgement, the Congress government
passed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act. The Act entitles
the divorced Muslim woman to "a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance
to be made and paid to her within the ‘idda period by her former husband."
Although the Act itself provoked differing reactions as to what its effect would
be, court practice allows the Muslim divorcée to appeal to the courts if her
former husband has not provided her with a reasonable sum for maintenance during
her ‘idda period. As in classical
law, the ‘idda period is defined as
three menstrual cycles after the divorce; three lunar months if the wife is
not subject to menstruation; or until delivery of the child or termination of
pregnancy if the woman is enceinte. The Act also stipulates that the divorced
wife is entitled to any outstanding dower, any property given her before or
during marriage, and maintenance for children in her custody born before or
after the finalisation of the divorce. There appears to be some modification
to classical Hanafi law in the definition of a divorcée entitled to claim such
support, as the Act specifies that its application pertains to marriages conducted
according to Muslim law where a Muslim woman has obtained a divorce from or
has been divorced by her husband in accordance with Muslim law. The Act directs
that if neither the former wife or husband has the means to provide for her
support, the responsibility of maintenance of the divorcée falls on her relations,
that is, those relatives that would stand to inherit from her. If she has no
close relations or they are unable to support her, liability falls to the State
Waqf Board. Section 5 of the Act also allows for a divorced Muslim woman
and her former husband to declare to the Court their willingness to be governed
by the provisions of sections 125 to 128 of the Code of Criminal Procedure relating
to the maintenance of dependants unable to support themselves. In the first
reported case relating to the Act (Ali v. Sufaira 1988 (2) KLT), the Kerala
High Court rejected a narrow interpretation of the legislation as only requiring
Muslim men to support their divorced wives during the ‘idda period. Rather, the Court stated that
the appropriate interpretation of section 3(1)(a), "…a divorced women shall
be entitled to a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to be made and
paid to her within the ‘idda period
by her former husband", was that maintenance during the waiting period
and reasonable and fair provision were two separate issues. Thus, the Court
ruled that the Muslim divorcée is entitled not only to maintenance for her waiting
period, but also to a reasonable and fair provision to provide "for her
future livelihood, from her former husband." This has since been confirmed
by a large number of judgements.
Custody is governed by the Guardians and Wards Act
1890 applicable to all religious communities in India. The Act stipulates that
courts are to be guided by the personal law to which the minor is subject. The
courts are also directed to consider the age, gender and religion of the minor
and the character and capacity of the proposed guardian, and the minor’s own
opinion if s/he is old enough to form an intelligent preference. If the minor
is very young or is female, the courts are directed to give preference to the
mother. In all cases, the interests of the ward are paramount. In custody cases
involving Muslims, courts tend to follow the general rule that the divorced
mother is entitled to custody till 7 years for boys (classical Hanafi position)
and puberty for girls.
Law/Case Reporting System:
Law reports are published in
Supreme Court Reports (SCR), All India Reporter (AIR), Indian Law Reports (ILR), and a large number
of state law reports.
International Conventions &
Reports to Treaty Governing Bodies: India acceded to the ICESCR and the ICCPR in
1979 with a number of declarations, including one to the effect that ‘the right
of self-determination’ mentioned in common Article 1 is interpreted by India
as applying only to peoples under foreign domination and not to sovereign independent
states or a section of a people or nation.
India
became a signatory to the CEDAW in 1980 and ratified it in 1993. India submitted
a declaration regarding Articles 5(a) and 16(1) that reiterates India’s commitment
to abiding by the provisions "in conformity with its policy of non-interference
in the personal affairs of any Community without its initiative and consent."
India also registered a declaration regarding Article 16(2) on minimum marriage
ages and compulsory registration; although India fully supports the principle,
"it is not practical in a vast country like India with its variety of customs,
religions and level of literacy."
India acceded to the CRC in 1992, with a declaration
regarding the progressive implementation of Article 32 thereof on child labour,
particularly with reference to paragraph 2(a) on the provision of a minimum
employment age.
Background and Sources: Baxi, "People’s Law in India," in Asian Indigenous Law in Interaction with Received Law, Chiba, ed. London, 1986; Diwan & Diwan, Women and Legal Protection, New Delhi, 1995; Engineer, The Shah Bano Controversy, Hyderabad, 1987; Anderson, "Islamic Law and the Colonial Encounter in British India," & Menski "The Reform of Family Law and a Uniform Civil Code for India," in Islamic Family Law, Mallat & Connors, eds. London, 1990; Mahmood, "India" in Statutes of Personal Law in Islamic Countries, 2nd ed., New Delhi, 1995; Malik, "Once Again Shah Bano: Maintenance and the Scope for Marriage Contracts," Dhaka Law Reports Journal Section, vol. 42 (1990): 34-40; Pearl & Menski, Muslim Family Law, 3rd ed., London, 1998; Redden, "India" in Modern Legal Systems Cyclopedia, vol. 9, Buffalo, NY, 1990; Robinson, ed. The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan and the Maldives, Cambridge, 1989.