Detonator Posted July 7, 2014 Posted July 7, 2014 The Supreme Court on Monday said a Shariat court, issuing fatwa and order against a person who is not before it, has no sanction of law and has no legal status. The apex court said there is "no doubt" that such a court has no legal status while noting that in some cases, orders were being passed by them which violate human rights and punish innocent persons. Read: SC has not banned Shariat courts: Darul Uloom Deoband lawyer A bench headed by justice CK Prasad said that no religion, including Islam, allows punishing the innocent and ordered that no 'Darul Qaza' should give verdict which affects rights of a person who is not before it. "Sharia courts are not sanctioned by law and there is no legality of fatwas in this country," said Prasad as he read out the judgement from a two-judge bench. The apex court said that Islamic judges, who interpret religious law, could only rule when individuals submitted voluntarily to them and their decisions, or fatwas, were not legally binding. The SC was hearing a petition filed by Delhi-base advocate Vishwa Lochan Madan, told AFP on Monday that his demand had been rejected. "The Supreme Court observed that Sharia courts have no legal sanctity. But if people still want to approach these courts, it's their will," he said. He filed his petition in 2005 and cited a case in which a woman was told to leave her husband and children and live with her father-in-law who had raped her. All India Personal Law Board had earlier submitted that fatwas were not binding on people and it was just an opinion of a mufti or a cleric and he has no power and authority to implement it. The counsel, appearing for the board, had said if a fatwa was sought to be implemented against the wish of the person concerned, then he could approach the court of law against it. The petitioner had submitted that the fundamental rights of Muslims could not be controlled and curtailed through fatwas issued by qazis and muftis appointed by Muslim organisations.? "No religion is allowed to curb anyone's fundamental rights," the court added in its judgement while taking note of the case. Qasim Rasool Niyazi, from the Muslim Personal Law Board, said the Supreme Court ruling vindicated his group's contention that Sharia courts were not a parallel judiciary. They issue notices which are not legally binding, he explained. India's 150 million Muslims follow their own laws governing family life and other personal issues such as marriage and divorce, with Sharia courts used to rule on such matters and mediate in disagreements. (With PTI and AFP inputs) http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/shariat-courts-have-no-legal-sanctity-says-supreme-court/article1-1237635.aspx :clap:
Midfielder Posted July 7, 2014 Posted July 7, 2014 Sharias court have no place in modern judiciary system. They should be banned period.
diga Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 Can anyone clarify if this is true? “If a person is practising a religion, he/she has to follow its preachings. A Muslim who does not follow the Shariat is not a true Muslim"
FischerTal Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 Sharias court have no place in modern judiciary system. They should be banned period. This. All khaps+ sharia and any kangaroo court must be banned
Sachin=GOD Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 This. All khaps+ sharia and any kangaroo court must be banned Yes. These should be the next in line for the SC.
sachin34357 Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 Sharia courts never claimed legal powers: Muslim Personal Law Board "Why are you ignoring the fact that the court has dismissed the petition for banning Darul-Qaza," Qureshi told IANS when asked to react on the court ruling that Sharia courts have no legal sanctity. "We never claimed that we are constitutional institutions or we have legal powers. We are private institutions and we decide the matters as per Sharia when parties approach us," he said. http://twocircles.net/2014jul07/sharia_courts_never_claimed_legal_powers_muslim_personal_law_board.html#.U7tx75RdV1Y
maniac Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 ^Not trying to rile up anyone,This was a perfect answer to anyone with an extremist ideology.
Vilander Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 But 150 million Indian muslims and 28 million BD muslims in India will be very pissed off with this, how can SC do this ? after all we are secular ( not where sate and religion are unrelated but where minority appeasement is based on majority aggravation) so how can SC say something that is Secular in real sense they can only rule saying Hindus should also submit to Sharia law if a Muslim is involved because for the indian constitution every one is equal the same would be in line with Indian secularism. Down with SC..alahoo
Vilander Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 The root cause is rape of a daughter in law by a father in law and fatwa was given for the daughter in law to leave her husband and become one of wife's of father in law. This is fair for Sharia why should SC bother about women's rights when Sharia knows what best for them ?
CSK Fan Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 But 150 million Indian muslims and 28 million BD muslims in India will be very pissed off with this' date=' how can SC do this ? after all we are secular ( not where sate and religion are unrelated but where minority appeasement is based on majority aggravation) so how can SC say something that is Secular in real sense they can only rule saying Hindus should also submit to Sharia law if a Muslim is involved because for the indian constitution every one is equal the same would be in line with Indian secularism. Down with SC..alahoo[/quote'] This is nothing to do with secularism (expect maybe the delay in banning these groups for so long) and more to do with the large size of the country and the slow moving legal processes because of which, such kangaroo courts have blossomed and been sustained throughout the country. From khap panchayats to religious courts, they have been here for decades. Should have been banned a long time ago
Vilander Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 This is nothing to do with secularism (expect maybe the delay in banning these groups for so long) and more to do with the large size of the country and the slow moving legal processes because of which' date=' such kangaroo courts have blossomed and been sustained throughout the country. From khap panchayats to religious courts, they have been here for decades. Should have been banned a long time ago[/quote'] i have a deep rooted issue with Indian secularism or the wrong understanding of secularism that Nehru passed on to Indian polity. Secular is when state and religion are removed from each other, not when state treats minority specially at the cost of majority. For the state everyone should be the same, this whole muslim personal law must not infringe into the states dominion.
diga Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 i have a deep rooted issue with Indian secularism or the wrong understanding of secularism that Nehru passed on to Indian polity. Secular is when state and religion are removed from each other' date=' not when state treats minority specially at the cost of majority. For the state everyone should be the same, this whole muslim personal law must not infringe into the states dominion.[/quote'] +1 and some also want relegion based reservation
FischerTal Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 i have a deep rooted issue with Indian secularism or the wrong understanding of secularism that Nehru passed on to Indian polity. Secular is when state and religion are removed from each other' date=' not when state treats minority specially at the cost of majority. For the state everyone should be the same, this whole muslim personal law must not infringe into the states dominion.[/quote'] Shah bano verdict was a great opportunity to nip this in the bud.
adi B Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 mulayam,laloo,mamata type leaders must be shredding crocodile tears by now :phehehe:
Recommended Posts