SARLA MUDGAL V. UNION OF INDIA (1995)

Author: Simple Kumari

Institution: S.S. Khanna Girls' Degree 

College

Affiliated to the University of  

Allahabad

 

INTRODUCTION

The case of Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India is one of the landmark judgement of the Supreme Court of India which deals with the complex issues of personal laws in India. The practice of changing one`s religion to have a second marriage without dissolving the first marriage was held to be invalid as it was against the principles of justice, equality, and morality. It was found that many men were allegedly changing their religion to solemnize their second marriage as Islam permits polygamy, that is a man can marry up to four wives. In this context, the Supreme Court`s landmark decision in Sarla mudgal v. Union of India (1995) stands out as a pivotal moment in Indian constitutional jurisprudence. The case dealt with a specific and socially impactful issue - whether under Hindu man, already married under Hindu law, can convert to Islam and marry again without dissolving the existing marriage. The petition raised critical constitutional and legal questions concerning religious freedom, gender justice, and the misuse of personal laws to bypass criminal liability for bigamy. Through this case, the Supreme Court not only addressed the issue of bigamy through religious conversion but also awaken the national debate on implementing a UCC as envisaged under Article 44 of the Constitution.

FACTS OF THE CASE

§  There were several petitioners involved in this case having a similar issues. 

§  Petitioner 1 was the President of “Kalyani” whowas a registered society working for welfare of needy families and women in distress. 

§  Petitioner 2 was Meena Mathur who was married to Jitendra Mathur and has three children. 

o   Meena Mathur discovered in early 1988 that her husband, Jitender Mathur, had married Sunita Narula (alias Fathima) after both converted to Islam. 

o   Meena claims the conversion was solely to circumvent Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), which prohibits bigamy under Hindu law. 

o   Jitender asserts that Islam permits four wives, even though his first wife remains Hindu. 

§  Another Petitioner in this case was Sunita Narula who was the second wife of Jitender Narula. 

o   Sunita claims that she converted to Islam and married Jitender, with whom she has a son. 

o   She alleges that Jitender, under pressure from his first wife, reverted to Hinduism and agreed to maintain his first wife and children, leaving Sunita without maintenance or protection under either Hindu or Muslim personal laws. 

§  Another Petitioner is Geeta Rani who married Pradeep Kumar according to Hindu rituals. 

o   Geeta alleged that her husband maltreated her, breaking her jawbone during one incident. 

o   In December 1991, she learned that Pradeep Kumar ran away with a woman named Deepa, converted to Islam, and married her. 

o   Geeta claims the conversion was a means to perform the second marriage. 

§  Further another Petitioner Sushmita Ghosh, was married to G.C. Ghosh according to Hindu rituals.  

o   In April 1992, her husband informed her that he did no longer wished to live with her and sought mutual consent for a divorce. 

o   Her wife later revealed that he had converted to Islam and intended to marry Vinita Gupta, presenting a certificate of conversion dated June 17, 1992. 

o   Sushmita filed the petition seeking to restrain her husband from marrying Vinita Gupta. 

§  Thus, the matter was before the Supreme Court for decision. 

ISSUES

Here are the critical issues raise by the petitioner in the Sarla mudgal v. Union of India (1995) case:

 

The petitioner raised the issue of some Hindu men converting to Islam not out of genuine faith, but to circumvent the Hindu law monogamy rule and to marry again without first divorcing their wives. This way, religious freedom was being misused.

 

The petitioner highlighted such acts violated the dignity and rights of the first wife. She remained legally married under Hindu law, though her husband married again under Muslim law. Hindu women suffered emotional, legal, also other injustice from this.

This case showed the conflict in India between Hindu law and Muslim law specifically where the same person sought governance by two personal laws for personal gain. There resulted confusion along with legal inconsistency.

India is lacking a Uniform Civil Code. This absence was a major issue that was raised. Regarding religion, the petitioner argued that a UCC ensures equality, justice, and clarity in marriage, divorce, and inheritance matters.

The petitioner alleged discrimination against Hindu women since it infringed upon their basic rights under Article 15 (ban on discrimination) and Article 21 (right to dignity and life) of the Constitution.

JUDGEMENT

The judgment in the case of Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India(1995) which is a landmark decision taken by the Supreme Court of India which addresses the conflict between personal laws and the requirement for a Uniform Civil Code (UCC). This case involves Hindu men who converted to Islam to solemnize a second marriage without dissolving the first, thereby misusing religious freedom to circumvent the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Court stated that such kind of conversion for the sole purpose of contracting a second marriage is invalid and amounts to bigamy, punishable under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. The judgement emphasized the necessity of a UCC to ensure national integration and gender justice, asserting that personal laws should not override constitutional mandates. It also underlines that religious freedom cannot be used as a shield to violate the rights of others, particularly women, and calls upon the government to take steps towards implementing a UCCas envisioned under Article 44 of the Constitution.

ANALYSIS

After analyzing the case as well as the  judgement of Sarla Mudgal v. Union Of India (1955) we shall find out that how the Supreme Court addressed the issue of religious conversion for the purpose of contracting a second marriage without legally dissolving the first. The court realised that individuals are misusing the personal laws by escaping from the monogamous requirement under the Hindu Marriage Act and converting to Islam . This situation raised the central constitutional question: whether such conversions were done solely to remarry was valid under the law. The court found that such conversions were not genuine expression of religious faith but rather a legal device to circumvent monogamy, and therefore the second marriage was void and resulted to bigamy under Section 494 of the IPC. The judgment emphasized that the right to freedom of religion under Article 25 does not protect fraud conversion for unlawful purposes. Moreover, the court identified the need for the Uniform Civil Code under Article 44 of the constitution to promote national integration and gender justice, expressing concern over the discriminatory impact of personal law pluralism, especially on women. It emphasized that a secular, democratic republic must have a uniform set of laws governing civil matters like marriage and and divorce to ensure equality and justice. Thus, the Sarla Mudgal case has not only highlighted the misuse of religious conversions but also lighted the constitutional debate on implementing a UCC to safeguard the rights of individuals, especially women, against the arbitrary and patriarchal aspects of personal laws.