|
|
The Supreme Court (SC) granted four extra
weeks to the Government to collect
data on the presence of Islamic and Shariat courts, their roles, and
implications on the judicial system.
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
from Advocate Vishwa Lochan Madan
cited several examples of Islamic
courts pronouncing fatwas (religious
decree) on mainline issues. Madan is
asking for the dissolution of these
courts.
Recently, the Deoband-based seminary Darul-Uloom
passed a controversial verdict on the
rape case of Imrana by her
father-in-law and the All Indian
Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMLB) was
wishy-washy on that decree. The
petitioner claimed that Islamic
clerics were interfering in criminal
law administration. He also cited
several references where the AIMLB
claimed setting up Darul Qaza (Muslim
courts) in Maharashtra, Rajasthan,
Madhya Pradesh, South and East Delhi,
West Bengal, and Uttar Pradesh. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA)
Government is in quandary from multiple perspectives.
Firstly, the Congress Party has been weakened
substantially in many states and except Delhi, cannot
claim a stronghold in any part of the nation.
Therefore, any action that will be seen as anti-Muslim
will further erode their traditional Muslim vote-bank.
Secondly, the Government is already under immense
pressure from Islamic leaders and clerics in the
nation for several extra-regional issues such as the
Dutch cartoons and India's anti-Iran vote in the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The
Government is nervous of inciting more anti-Government
feelings if they should try reforming the judicial
system. Thirdly, India will have state-level elections
in many states where Muslims are in large numbers. A
politically inept move may destroy Congress's slim
chance of garnering many seats. This will make its
continuance of its policies or even in power that much
harder.
A group of Islamic clerics and leaders had met with
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh demanding that neither
the Government nor the courts should
"interfere" with Islamic courts. Besides,
they have major support from regional politicians with
no agendas other than usurping power. Uttar Pradesh
Chief Minister supported the verdict on the Imrana
rape case saying that "the religious leaders are
all very learned and they understand the Muslim
community and their sentiments." He supported the
verdict saying that "the decision of the Muslim
religious leaders must have been taken after a lot of
thought."
The central issue is not the qualification of the Muslim
leaders or their ability to pass judgments. The issue
is whether the presence of parallel courts and justice
system is allowed under the Indian Constitution and if
so what is the impact on India's secular system.
Secularism is where religion is not a considered
premise when dealing with education, administration,
and justice. Unfortunately, in India, secularism has
been confused with religious freedom and rights of
minorities. Hence, there are separate laws based on
religion for Hindus, Muslims, and Christians governing
different aspects of marriage, divorce, property, and
social behavior.
The new confusion created by politicians is whether there
should be a parallel criminal justice system. It then
follows whether there should be religion-based police,
education systems, administration, financial, and
social systems. If so, in case of conflict of laws
between two communities what should be the arbitration
be process?
The presence of parallel courts creates a country within a
country, is divisive of people, and ghettos for people
to live in.
|
