Web Desk

ISLAMABAD: The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) has strongly criticized a petition before the Supreme Court of India seeking to invalidate Islamic inheritance law, describing the move as &ldquo;mischievous&rdquo; and warning it threatens constitutionally protected religious freedoms.&nbsp;The petition, reportedly filed by the Naya Nari Foundation, challenges the application of Shariat-based inheritance rules among Muslims in India, arguing that the provisions discriminate against Muslim women.&nbsp;In a statement to the media, AIMPLB spokesperson S. Q. R. Ilyas rejected the claim and said the plea was based on misleading assumptions about Islamic law.&nbsp;&ldquo;The petition is mischievous and presents Islamic inheritance law in a distorted manner,&rdquo; Ilyas said, adding that it ignored constitutional protections guaranteed to religious communities.<div class="fr-embed"><div class="twitter-tweet twitter-tweet-rendered" style="display: flex; max-width: 550px; width: 100%; margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><iframe id="twitter-widget-0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="true" title="X Post" src="https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-0&features=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%3D%3D&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=2032348625565778055&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fmain.d1wrm1qseko1cp.amplifyapp.com%2Farticles%2Fnew%2F&sessionId=7d0fa49dd67c9941107d432a928e8889b5009988&theme=light&widgetsVersion=2615f7e52b7e0%3A1702314776716&width=550px" style="position: static; visibility: visible; width: 550px; height: 849px; display: block; flex-grow: 1;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</iframe></div></div>The Board argued that the challenge contradicts Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees citizens the freedom to profess, practise and propagate their religion.&nbsp;According to the AIMPLB, Islamic personal law forms part of that protected religious sphere and cannot be set aside through litigation.&nbsp;Ilyas also pointed to the landmark Narasu Appa Mali case decided by the Bombay High Court, which held that personal laws are not subject to constitutional scrutiny in the same way as statutory legislation.&nbsp;&ldquo;That judgment makes it clear that personal laws cannot be treated as ordinary statutory provisions open to constitutional challenge,&rdquo; he said.&nbsp;Responding to claims that Islamic inheritance rules are not an essential religious practice, the Board said Muslim family laws derive directly from the Quran and Sunnah, making them binding within the religious framework.<iframe id="twitter-widget-1" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="true" title="X Post" src="https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-1&features=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%3D%3D&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=2031701672641311119&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fmain.d1wrm1qseko1cp.amplifyapp.com%2Farticles%2Fnew%2F&sessionId=7d0fa49dd67c9941107d432a928e8889b5009988&theme=light&widgetsVersion=2615f7e52b7e0%3A1702314776716&width=550px" style="position: static; visibility: visible; width: 550px; height: 641px; display: block; flex-grow: 1;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</iframe><div class="fr-embed"> </div>&ldquo;These laws are rooted in the Quran and Sunnah and therefore form an integral part of Islamic life,&rdquo; Ilyas said.&nbsp;Addressing allegations of gender discrimination, the AIMPLB said Islamic law grants men and women equal dignity while assigning them different financial responsibilities.&nbsp;&ldquo;Men are obligated to provide maintenance and bear household expenses, while women are under no financial obligation and may independently retain and use their own income,&rdquo; Ilyas said.&nbsp;The Board also rejected suggestions that the issue could be resolved through the adoption of a Uniform Civil Code, noting that Article 44 of the constitution is only a directive principle and cannot override fundamental rights.&nbsp;&ldquo;Article 44 cannot be imposed on Muslims in a way that violates their fundamental right to practise religion,&rdquo; Ilyas said, urging the court to dismiss the petition.&nbsp;During the hearing, however, the Supreme Court observed that a Uniform Civil Code could potentially address concerns raised in the petition.&nbsp;The bench also questioned whether striking down Shariat inheritance provisions might create a legal vacuum in the absence of an alternative statutory framework governing Muslim inheritance.&nbsp;The case has reignited debate over religious autonomy and minority rights in India, where critics say legal and political pressure on Muslim personal laws has intensified in recent years.

India

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board opposes a Supreme Court petition challenging Islamic inheritance law, warning it threatens religious freedom, while judges suggest a Uniform Civil Code and question whether scrapping Shariat rules would create legal uncertainty.

Indian Muslim board denounces Supreme Court challenge to Shariat inheritance

NEW DELHI: India&#39;s Supreme Court authorized on Wednesday the withdrawal of life support from a man who has been in a vegetative state for over a decade, the first such ruling in the country&#39;s history. India recognized passive euthanasia in 2018, permitting the removal of life support under strict conditions to allow death to occur naturally. But this marks the first time that a court has approved its use for an individual. The parents of Harish Rana had sought to discontinue medical support for their son, who suffered severe head injuries in a fall from a building in 2013 and has been on life support since. The court granted their request on Wednesday, saying in its ruling that Rana exhibited &quot;no meaningful interaction&quot; and had been dependent on others for &quot;all activities of self-care&quot;. &quot;His condition has shown no improvement,&quot; the court was quoted as saying by legal news website Bar and Bench. Doctors had already concluded that Rana, who is in his early 30s, has virtually no chance of recovery. But because he does not have a living will &ndash; a legally binding document outlining preferences for medical care in the event of a terminal condition &ndash; he has not been able to give his consent for passive euthanasia. His parents, therefore, had petitioned the court to allow him to be taken off life support. Active euthanasia, in which substances are directly administered to cause death, remains illegal in India. But the national debate over allowing someone to die dates to the 2011 case of Aruna Shanbaug, a nurse who spent 42 years in a vegetative state following a brutal sexual assault. The Supreme Court rejected a plea by Shanbaug&#39;s family to end her life, and she died from pneumonia in 2015 aged 66. But it did issue a landmark opinion recognizing passive euthanasia under strict safeguards and with judicial approval. The move relied on earlier judgements that recognized the constitutional right to die with dignity, and served as a prelude to the expanded 2018 ruling on passive euthanasia. Euthanasia remains a deeply divisive global issue, with supporters arguing that terminally ill patients should have the autonomy to choose a compassionate end to unbearable suffering, while opponents stress the sanctity of life. A handful of countries, including the Netherlands, Belgium and Canada, allow both euthanasia and physician-assisted dying under tight safeguards.

India's Supreme Court authorized the withdrawal of life support from a man who has been in a vegetative state for over a decade. (University of Pennsylvania) 

India’s Supreme Court allowed life support to be withdrawn from a man in a vegetative state since 2013, the country’s first court-approved case of passive euthanasia after his parents petitioned.

India's top court allows withdrawal of life support for man in vegetative state

ISLAMABAD: The Indian Supreme Court on Thursday ordered that the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, be kept in abeyance, expressing serious reservations about their vagueness and potential misuse, according to Indian media.&nbsp; The regulations aim to address discrimination within higher education institutions and ensure&nbsp;inclusion for students from marginalized backgrounds. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing three writ petitions challenging the constitutionality of the 2026 regulations. Discriminatory toward &lsquo;general classes&rsquo;The petitions were filed by Mritunjay Tiwari, Advocate Vineet Jindal and Rahul Dewan, who contend that the regulations are discriminatory toward &ldquo;general classes.&rdquo; Issuing notice to the Union of India and the UGC, the Court made the notice returnable on March 19.&nbsp; Till then, the 2026 Regulations will remain in abeyance.&nbsp; The Court further directed that the earlier UGC Regulations of 2012 will remain in force in the interim. During the hearing, the bench orally flagged <a href="https://www.pakistantv.com/article/congress-urges-indias-top-judge-to-act-before-muslims-butchered-in-up" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" rel="noopener noreferrer">several concerns</a>.&nbsp;&nbsp;Vague and capable of misuseThe Supreme Court asked whether India was <a href="https://www.pakistantv.com/article/india-sees-surge-in-attacks-on-christians-muslims-under-modi-wsj" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" rel="noopener noreferrer">&ldquo;going backwards&rdquo;</a> from the goal of achieving a casteless society. It noted that the provisions appeared vague and capable of misuse, questioned why &ldquo;caste-based discrimination&rdquo; was separately defined when the definition of &ldquo;discrimination&rdquo; already existed, and asked why ragging had been excluded from the regulations.&nbsp; The court suggested that the regulations be revisited by a committee comprising eminent jurists who understand social values and societal challenges. The bench also raised concerns about the omission of ragging from the framework and questioned remedial measures such as separate hostels for different castes.&nbsp;&nbsp;The lawyer of one of the petitioners argued that the regulation&#39;s definition of &ldquo;caste-based discrimination&rdquo; excludes discrimination against general category students and violates the Constitution.&nbsp;

Directs that the earlier regulations of 2012 will operate in the interim; notes that the provisions of the new regulations appeared vague and capable of misuse.

Indian Supreme Court stays new higher education regulations, flags scope for misuse

NEW DELHI: India&#39;s Supreme Court denied bail Monday for former student leader Umar Khalid, who has been detained for more than five years on charges of conspiracy to trigger deadly riots. Khalid, 38, was arrested in September 2020 under a sweeping anti-terrorism law and has remained in custody since, aside from brief releases to attend family weddings. His case has become a touchstone for critics who say India&rsquo;s more than 200 million Muslims face discriminatory treatment in the Hindu-majority nation. Khalid was detained after the February 2020 sectarian riots in Delhi, when 53 people were killed -- mostly Muslims, but also several Hindus. SC dismisses appeal&nbsp;The Supreme Court in New Delhi dismissed his appeal for bail, saying that &ldquo;prolonged incarceration&rdquo; was not grounds to grant him release. It also denied bail on the same grounds to another student activist, Sharjeel Imam. But it approved bail for five others in the same case. Khalid, a former student at Delhi&rsquo;s prestigious Jawaharlal Nehru University, was charged with rioting with a deadly weapon, as well as attempted murder, sedition and causing enmity between different groups. He denies all charges. &lsquo;Provocative speeches&rsquo;Police also accused Khalid of delivering &ldquo;provocative speeches&rdquo; ahead of the riots. In 2022, he published an open letter saying that &ldquo;we can be kept in jail for years, without those framing us needing to prove anything&rdquo;. His partner, Banojyotsna Lahiri, has said that Khalid &ldquo;became the victim of the injustice that he always fought against&rdquo;. Amnesty International and six other rights groups issued a statement in September calling for the release of Khalid. &lsquo;Derailment of justice&rsquo;&nbsp;&ldquo;Khalid&#39;s prolonged persecution exemplifies the derailment of justice in India, as it makes a mockery of international human rights principles,&rdquo; Amnesty said in a statement to mark Khalid&#39;s fifth year in prison. Khalid&#39;s arrest came months after protests against India&#39;s contentious Citizen Amendment Act (CAA). The 2019 law makes it easier for persecuted religious minorities from three neighboring countries to obtain citizenship, but not if they are Muslim.

The Supreme Court in New Delhi dismisses Khalid’s appeal for bail, saying that ‘prolonged incarceration' was not grounds to grant him release; also denies bail on the same grounds to another student activist, Sharjeel Imam.

Articles tagged with "Indian Supreme Court"

Indian Muslim board denounces Supreme Court challenge to Shariat inheritance

India's top court allows withdrawal of life support for man in vegetative state

Indian Supreme Court stays new higher education regulations, flags scope for misuse

India's top court denies bail to Muslim student activist Umar Khalid

Indian Muslim board denounces Supreme Court challenge to Shariat inheritance