Current Affairs Topics Quiz Archive
International Relations Economics Polity & Governance Environment & Ecology Science & Technology Internal Security Geography Social Issues Art & Culture Modern History

Muslim Personal Law Board condemns Supreme Court petition challenging Islamic inheritance law

March 12, 2026 5 min read Polity & Governance Social Issues GS Paper 2
On This Page ▼

What Happened

  • A petition was filed in the Supreme Court — reportedly by the Naya Nari Foundation — seeking to invalidate Islamic inheritance law provisions that give women a smaller share of inheritance compared to men under Muslim personal law.
  • The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) strongly condemned the petition, calling it "mischievous" and a violation of the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom under Article 25.
  • The AIMPLB argued that the petition contradicts the established legal position that personal laws governing religious communities are protected from constitutional scrutiny, citing the Bombay High Court's ruling in State of Bombay v. Narasu Appa Mali (1952).
  • The Supreme Court, without passing an interim order, kept the matter pending for further consideration — indicating it will weigh constitutional provisions on religious freedom, gender equality, and judicial precedent before proceeding.
  • The petition calls for application of the Indian Succession Act (applicable to non-Muslims) or a secular succession law to Muslim citizens.

Static Topic Bridges

Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937

The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 (Act 26 of 1937) is the primary statute that applies Islamic personal law — the Shariat — to Muslims in India for matters of personal status.

  • Enacted during the British colonial period, the Act governs: marriage, dower (mehr), divorce (talaq, ila, zihar, lian, khula, mubaraat), maintenance, guardianship, gifts, trusts (waqf), and inheritance/succession.
  • Under classical Islamic inheritance law (Faraid), a daughter receives half the share of a son; a wife receives one-eighth or one-quarter depending on whether there are children; rules are derived directly from Quranic verses (Surah An-Nisa, 4:11–12).
  • The Act does not codify Islamic law into statute — it declares that Shariat governs these matters for Muslims, leaving the substantive rules to be determined by Islamic jurisprudence.
  • The Indian Succession Act, 1925 (which provides equal inheritance rights regardless of gender) does NOT apply to Muslims — Muslims in India are governed by the 1937 Act.

Connection to this news: The petition challenges the Islamic inheritance provisions under the 1937 Act as discriminatory against Muslim women, particularly for their gender-unequal inheritance shares.

Articles 25 and 26 — Freedom of Religion and Its Limits

The constitutional framework for religious freedom is set out in Articles 25 and 26, subject to significant qualifications.

  • Article 25(1): All persons have the right to freely profess, practise, and propagate religion — subject to public order, morality, health, and other provisions of Part III of the Constitution (i.e., Fundamental Rights including equality).
  • Article 25(2)(a): The State may regulate or restrict any "secular activity associated with religious practice" — the court has distinguished between "religious practice" (protected) and "secular activities" merely associated with religion.
  • Article 26: Religious denominations have the right to manage their own affairs in matters of religion, subject to public order, morality, and health.
  • The "essential religious practices" doctrine — developed in the Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar (1954) case — holds that only practices essential to the religion are protected under Articles 25–26; non-essential practices can be regulated.
  • In Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (Sabarimala, 2018), the Supreme Court applied this doctrine to hold that the exclusion of women of menstruating age from the Sabarimala temple was not an essential religious practice and violated Articles 25 and 14.

Connection to this news: The AIMPLB's defence rests on Articles 25 and 26; the petitioners argue that inheritance rules are a secular activity or that gender discrimination overrides religious protection under the interplay of Article 25(1) and Article 14.

Narasu Appa Mali Case and Personal Laws

The State of Bombay v. Narasu Appa Mali (1952) decision by the Bombay High Court (Justices Chagla and Gajendragadkar) is foundational to the debate on whether personal laws are subject to Fundamental Rights review.

  • The Bombay HC held that personal laws — derived from religious scriptures — are NOT "laws in force" within the meaning of Article 13 of the Constitution, and therefore cannot be struck down for violating Fundamental Rights.
  • Article 13 declares any law "in force" before or after the Constitution void if it violates Part III rights; the Narasu Appa Mali ruling placed personal laws outside this Article's ambit.
  • This ruling has never been explicitly overruled by the Supreme Court, though several SC judgments have questioned its validity.
  • In Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) (Triple Talaq case), the SC struck down instant triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat) as unconstitutional — but the majority did so on the ground that it was not an essential Islamic practice, largely sidestepping the Narasu Appa Mali issue.
  • A full bench determination of whether personal laws are subject to Fundamental Rights review remains pending.

Connection to this news: The current petition presents the Supreme Court with another opportunity to settle the Narasu Appa Mali question — whether Islamic inheritance rules can be tested against Articles 14 (equality) and 15 (non-discrimination on grounds of sex).

Key Facts & Data

  • Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937: Governs personal matters for Muslims in India
  • Islamic inheritance under Faraid: Daughter receives half the share of a son
  • Article 25: Right to freedom of religion (subject to public order, morality, health, and other Fundamental Rights)
  • Article 26: Right of religious denominations to manage their own religious affairs
  • Article 13: Laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are void; personal laws' status under Article 13 remains judicially unsettled
  • State of Bombay v. Narasu Appa Mali (1952): Personal laws held outside Article 13's ambit
  • Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017): Instant triple talaq struck down as unconstitutional (3:2 majority)
  • Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018, Sabarimala): Applied "essential religious practices" test
  • AIMPLB: All India Muslim Personal Law Board — a non-governmental body representing Muslim personal law interests
  • Indian Succession Act, 1925: Does not apply to Muslims; governs succession for Christians, Jews, Parsis, and unmarried converts