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 “mischievous” and warning it threatens constitutionally protected religious freedoms.
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.
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.
“The petition is mischievous and presents Islamic inheritance law in a distorted manner,” Ilyas said, adding that it ignored constitutional protections guaranteed to religious communities.
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.
According to the AIMPLB, Islamic personal law forms part of that protected religious sphere and cannot be set aside through litigation.
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.
“That judgment makes it clear that personal laws cannot be treated as ordinary statutory provisions open to constitutional challenge,” he said.
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.
“These laws are rooted in the Quran and Sunnah and therefore form an integral part of Islamic life,” Ilyas said.
Addressing allegations of gender discrimination, the AIMPLB said Islamic law grants men and women equal dignity while assigning them different financial responsibilities.
“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,” Ilyas said.
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.
“Article 44 cannot be imposed on Muslims in a way that violates their fundamental right to practise religion,” Ilyas said, urging the court to dismiss the petition.
During the hearing, however, the Supreme Court observed that a Uniform Civil Code could potentially address concerns raised in the petition.
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.
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.
