1.

WHETHER THE MATTER IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the present petition challenging the
various practices of Muslim Personal Law is not maintainable before the Hon’ble Court.
Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees to all persons the freedom of conscience and the
right to freely profess, practise and propagate religion. The Right to move to the Supreme
Court must be based on a pleading that the Petitioner’s personal rights have been violated.
The petitioners in the present case do not belong to the Muslim Religion. To determine the
validity of practices whose provision lie in the Qur’an and certain long standing religious
customs and the usages of a sect at the instance of an association who are involved in
developmental activities especially activities related to the upliftment of women and helping
them become aware of their rights”, would require this Court to decide religious questions at
the behest of persons who do not subscribe to this faith.
The absence of this bare minimum requirement must not be viewed as a mere technicality,
but an essential requirement to maintain a challenge for impugning practises of any religious
sect. Permitting PILs in religious matters would open the floodgates to interlopers to question
religious beliefs and practises, even if the petitioner is not a believer of a particular religion,
or a worshipper of a particular shrine. The perils are even graver for religious minorities if
such petitions are entertained.
The right to practise one’s religion is a Fundamental Right guaranteed by Part III of the
Constitution, without reference to whether religion or the religious practises are rational or
not. Religious practises are constitutionally protected under Articles 25 and 26(b).
In Hans Muller of Nurenburg vs Superintendent, Presidency Jail, Calcutta & Ors.1, this
Court held that a person can impugn a particular law under Article 32 only if he is aggrieved
by it. In the case of Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj etc. vs State of Rajasthan & Ors2, it
was held that, “the real question is whether the religious denomination looks upon it as an
essential part of its religion, and however irrational it may appear to persons who do not
share that religious belief, the view of the denomination must prevail, for, it is not open to a
court to describe as irrational that which is a part of a denomination’s religion.”

1
AIR 1955 SC 367
2
AIR 1963 SC 1638
The House of Lords in the case of Regina vs Secretary of State for Education and
Employment and Ors3, held that the court ought not to embark upon an enquiry into the
validity or legitimacy of asserted beliefs on the basis of objective standards or rationality.
The observations of Justice Chinnappa Reddy in the case of Bijoe Emmanuel & Ors vs State
of Kerala and Ors4 was that, “Article 25 is an article of faith in the Constitution,
incorporated in recognition of the principle that the real test of a true democracy is the
ability of even an insignificant minority to find its identity under the country’s Constitution.
This has to borne in mind in interpreting Article 25.”
In the case of Shayara bano vs Union of India and Ors5, the then Chief Justice, Justice
Khehar pointed out that, “while examining the issues falling in the realm of religious
practises or Personal Law, it is not for a court to make a choice of something which it
considers as forward-looking or non-fundamentalist. It is not for a court to determine
whether religious practises were prudent or progressive or regressive. Religion and Personal
Law, must be perceived, as it is accepted by the followers of the faith”
In the case of Ratilal Panachand Gandhi vs The State of Bombay and Ors6, the narrow
definition of religion given by the Bombay High Court was discarded. It was held that all
religious practises or performances of acts in pursuance of religion were as much a part of
religion, as faith or belief in particular doctrines.
In Durgah Committee, Ajmer & Anr. Vs Syed Hussain Ali & Ors7, it was held that in order
that the practises in question should be treated as a part of religion they must be regarded by
the said religion as its essential and integral part.
Religion is a matter of faith, and religious beliefs are held to be sacred by those who share the
same faith. Thought, faith and belief are internal, while expression and worship are external
manifestations thereof.
Thus. In light of the abovementioned discussions, the Writ Petition cannot be entertained.

3
[2005] UKHL 15
4
(1986) 3 SCC 615
5
(2017) 9 SCC 1
6
AIR 1954 SC 388
7
AIR 1961 SC 1492