LILY THOMAS V. UNION OF INDIA (2000)
Lily Thomas v. Union of India, (2000) 6 SCC 224.
Judgment delivered by- Justice R.P. Sethi and Justice Saghir Ahmad
Landmark
case on Constitutional and Personal laws.
Author- lmra Fatima, B.A.LLB(Hons), SS Khanna Degree College, University of Allahabad, Prayagraj
ABSTRACT
In India
everyone has the right to profess, propagate and practice any religion of their
choice but the exercise of these rights by citizens should not infringe the
right vested in any other citizen in respect of whom such right is exercised.
In the case, Lily Thomas v. Union of
India, the petitioner Mrs. Sushmita Ghosh filed a petition in the Supreme
Court of India after her husband Mr. G.C. Ghosh (Mohd. Karim Ghazi) converted
to Islam to marry another woman without annulling his current marriage with
Sushmita Ghosh. This case relates to practice of bigamy, conversion of
religion, abuse of such conversion and abuse of the sanctity of marriage. This
case highlights the conflict between the personal laws and the Constitutional
rights granted to citizens.
However in
this case, the Court held that no man could marry another woman without
annulling their current marriage. A man cannot solemnize their second marriage
simply by converting to some other religion without dissolving their current
marriage either by divorce or by judicial separation. If in case a man marries
another woman by converting his religion and without dissolving his current
marriage, then he would be liable for bigamy under Section 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. His second
marriage would also be void under the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955.
PRIMARY DETAILS OF THE CASE
|
Case title |
Lily
Thomas v. Union of India |
|
|
Case brought by |
Writ petition (civil) |
|
|
Case type |
Writ Petition (Civil)/789/1995 |
|
|
Petitioner |
Lily Thomas, Etc. |
|
|
Respondent |
Union of India |
|
|
Legal aspects involved |
Article
21, 25, 26 and 44 of the Indian Constitution, 1950; Sections 494 and 495 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860; and Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. |
|
|
Jurisdiction involved |
Supreme Court of India |
|
|
Bench |
Justice R.P. Sethi and Justice S. Saghir Ahmad |
|
|
Date of judgment |
May 5, 2000 |
|
|
Disposal nature |
Petitions dismissed |
|
|
Authority |
Original Jurisdiction (Civil) |
|
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
In the
case Lily Thomas v. Union of India,
the petitioner filed a Writ Petition in the Apex Court of India after her
husband informed her about his conversion to Islam on April 1st, 1992 and that
he wants to marry a Delhi resident, Vinita Gupta. Her husband G.C. Ghosh (Mohd.
Karim Ghazi) also presented a certificate issued by the office of Shahi Qazi
certifying his conversion to Islam. He even demanded from her wife that she
should give her consent for their mutual divorce to this marriage.
The
petitioner stated that they have been married since 10th May, 1984 and their
marriage was solemnized according to the Hindu rites and rituals in conformity
with the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Sushmita Ghosh, when her husband converted to Islam, was around 34 years old
and she was unemployed.
She had
suffered mental trauma due to her husband’s act and further mentions that her
right under Article 15(1) of the
Constitution has been violated since she has faced discrimination on the
grounds of religion and gender.
ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE CASE
The major
issue of the case is to determine the legal status of G.C. Ghosh's second
marriage. Since he converted to another religion just to marry another woman,
without dissolving his current marriage so what would be the legal status of
his second marriage was to be determined and to be declared void or valid as
the case may be.
Mr Ghosh’s
liability under Section 494 and 495 of
Indian Penal Code regarding the offence of bigamy was also to be
determined. The question of bigamy rose because he had not annulled his first
marriage.
Thirdly,
the need for a Uniform Civil Code was also observed. Uniform Civil Code will
replace all the personal laws to common law to regulate an individual's
personal affairs. This will reduce the number of such cases which involve
conflicts between different personal laws. Hence, the need for a Uniform Civil
Code (UCC) was also questioned.
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
ARGUMENT
PRESENTED BY THE PETITIONER
The
petitioner argued that her husband's conversion to Islam and engaging in second
marriage to obtain her consent for divorce has violated her rights guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution
i.e. Right to Life and Article 19
i.e. Right to Freedom.
Further,
the petitioner stated that her husband's conversion to Islam is invalid, nevertheless
the certificate has been obtained, but he has not renounced his faith in
Hinduism and has not genuinely adopted Islamic practices. Some of his documents
still had his original name including his child's birth certificate, visa
application to Bangladesh, etc. Therefore the petitioner tried to prove that
her husband accepted Islam only to get married to Vinita Gupta and to obtain
divorce from her. He had no respect for any religious ideals; his only
intention was a second marriage.
The
petitioner even stated that her natural rights have also been violated as
observed in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of
India which established that the principle of natural justice is a
fundamental aspect of Article 21.
Lastly,
the petitioner argued that her husband's second marriage will be considered
void under the Section 11 of Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 since it does not fulfill the conditions given in Section 5 of the same Act. The most
important condition that was not fulfilled was that: for the marriage to be
valid there should be no spouses living at the time of marriage and his wife
was alive. Therefore, the petitioner argued that her husband should be held
liable under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act i.e. Section 17 and also for bigamy under Sections 494 and 495 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
ARGUMENTS
PRESENTED BY THE RESPONDENT
The
respondent presented a counter argument by stating that he has converted to
Islam and he is allowed by muslim personal law to have his marriage solemnised
with four wives at a time and since the
matter involved personal laws and their prosecution was under Indian Penal Code therefore there was no
violation of their fundamental rights.
The
petitioners questioned the respondent’s legality of being a Muslim. To that he
answered that some of the Muslim laws are still uncodified and the the
provisions for converting into Islam is based on the long standing practices
and the two mandatory requirements was that the person who accepts conversion
should be of sound mind and he must give his free consent to such conversion.
He has fulfilled both these conditions and obtained a certificate from the
office of Maulana Qari Mohammad Idris, Shahi Qazi. Therefore he is no longer a
Hindu.
Also,
Islam is governed by the Quran and the Quran mentions that a man is allowed to
marry four wives at a time if he treats all of them with equal justice and
love. Since he is no longer a follower of Hinduism and has been converted into
Islam, he is allowed to marry despite her wife living at the time of marriage.
He will not be held liable under Sections
494 and 495 of Indian Penal Code for bigamy, since for that purpose the
offence should be established under the personal law, since he is no more a
Hindu and Muslim personal laws apply on him which stated that polygamy is
allowed therefore he cannot be held liable.
The
respondent also argued that he is not liable under Sections 11 and 17 of Hindu Marriage Act because the provisions of
the act applies only on Hindus and he is no more a Hindu therefore, his
liability does not arise.
Further,
the respondent argued that under Article
25 of the Constitution he has been granted a right of “Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of
religion.” Therefore he is free to choose which faith to follow and whoever
restricts him from doing so will be held liable for infringement of his rights.
LEGAL ASPECTS INVOLVED IN THE CASE
Constitution of India, 1950
1. Article
21- this article guarantees the right
to life and personal liberty and states that no person shall be deprived of it
except according to the procedure established by law.
2. Article
25- this article states that all
persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right to freely
profess, practice and propagate religion subject to certain provisions of morality, public order, health etc.
3. Article
26- this article guarantees an
individual the right to manage his religious affairs subject to the provisions
of public order, morality and health.
4. Article
44- this article provides a directive
to the state to secure a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.
Indian Penal Code, 1860
1. Section
494 and 495-
These Sections define bigamy and have made it punishable with imprisonment upto
seven years or fine or both.
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
1. Section
11- this section describes void
marriages.
2. Section
17- this section addresses the issue
of bigamy and has made it an offence. It declared bigamous marriages as void
and punishable.
JUDGMENT
The Court
gave judgment in favor of the petitioner, the wife and made it illegal to marry
another woman while the former is alive after converting into a Muslim. The
Court observed, “Renunciation of Religion
does not end the civil obligations or the matrimonial bond, but it is a ground
for filing divorce under Section 13 and judicial separation under Section 10 of
the Hindu Marriage Act. The Hindu law supports ‘monogamy’. Therefore, a second
marriage is void under Sections 11 and 17, and it is an offence under Sections
494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code.”
On the
validity of the second marriage, the Court ruled that the second marriage is
invalid and void as according to Section
11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: no one can enter into a second marriage
when his/her spouse is living at the time of the second marriage. Hindu
Marriage Act has made polygamy illegal. Therefore, if a wife makes a complaint
against her husband engaging in second marriage and thereby converting his
religion then he will be liable for bigamy under Section 17 of Hindu Marriage Act and Section 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the Court
held that there is no infringement of Article 21 of the Constitution.
Further,
the Court stated that converting one's religion only to get married and
dissolve the current marriage is not a genuine conversion of faith. The spirit
of Islam is submission to one God, not to enter into multiple marriages
therefore this is contrary to the ideals of the religion. The Court held that
the sanctity of the marriages must be respected and preserved.
On the
respondent's contention of violation of his fundamental rights as guaranteed in
Article 21, the Court held that the
fundamental rights should be exercised in such a way that there should not be
infringement of others’ rights. While everyone has a right to practice their
religion, it should be practiced in such a manner that no conflict should arise
between the religious freedom/personal laws and the fundamental rights.
IMPACT AND SIGNIFICANCE
The Court,
in the case of Lily Thomas v. Union of
India, gave a significant ruling regarding Article 25 which guarantees religious freedom and the Court's
decision also restricted an individual from infringing the rights of others
while exercising his own rights.
The Court
also highlighted an individual's obligation and responsibilities towards his
marriage and made bigamy/polygamy strictly prohibited. It protected women's
rights and prevented their exploitation.
In many
cases it was also observed that Hindu men used to convert into Islam only to
obtain divorce from their current wife and for marriage purposes. After that
they used to revert to their original faith to protect their rights in property
and to maintain conduct of other businesses. The Court's ruling prohibited such
actions and restored the dignity of married women and religious ideals.
CONCLUSION
In the
case, Lily Thomas v. Union of India,
the honourable Court examined the need for a Uniform Civil Code but remained
silent on its application and held that the application of UCC in India,
however desirable, can cause harm to the national unity and pose a threat to
the diversities that exist in India. In India, where there are vast diversities
between culture, religion, tribal practices, etc UCC provisions may create
conflicts between the personal laws of the citizens.
Post a Comment