The Supreme Court’s verdict asserting that Muslim divorcees are not bound by the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, while seeking alimony from their former husbands and that this law will not prevail over Section 125 of the erstwhile Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) reassures the primacy of the secular laws in a country that chose to be secular despite its Partition along religious lines.
The verdict, which has legal and political overtones, becomes historic for several reasons. Primarily, it has brought into focus the dignity of human life and ruled that maintenance is not charity but the right of all married women, irrespective of their religion. It also effectively neutralises the 1986 law, brought in to overturn the apex court ruling in 1985 in the famous Shah Bano case which allowed Muslim women to seek maintenance under the secular law. With the latest order, the legal recourse a Muslim woman had to take to get her rightful relief has been restored.
The 1986 law had sought to bar Muslim women from accessing the reliefs available to all Indian women. It marked an inflection point in Indian politics after which matters took a turn for the worse. Congress Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, who came to power with an unprecedented 414 seats in the 543-member Lok Sabha in the 1984 election, allowed himself to be tricked into introducing this law which undermined the secular credentials of not only his party but also of the country. The Prime Minister was unable to foresee the damage such a regressive law could cause to the social fabric of the country.
The charge that the Congress had sold itself to Muslim fundamentalists gave an extra push to Hindutva politics, championed by the BJP, and was followed by the opening of the gate of the Babri Masjid locked up in 1949 on the orders of then Prime Minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. Tumultuous events followed, starting with the Rath Yatra of Mr Lal Krishna Advani, followed by the razing of the Masjid, and ultimately, the construction and consecration of the Ayodhya Ram temple. The Congress and secular politics ended up the losers.
Now, India is back to square one. The Supreme Court has rendered this divisive law toothless by declaring that it is up to the aggrieved Muslim woman to seek remedy under the provisions of either law — the Section 125 of the CrPC or the 1986 law. It has also held that the 1986 law did not negate the CrPC, which is religion-neutral; it only added to the choices of the Muslim women. In fact, courts across India had offered Muslim women relief under the CrPC despite the presence of the 1986 law in the statute book. The latest order only places on it the imprimatur of the Supreme Court.
India, a nation with limited resources, has to wage a tough battle in order that it may ensure a dignified life for all its citizens. Communal angles to social issues can only undermine or delay those efforts. The SC order reminds all stakeholders to stay the course.
