A petition has been submitted to the Supreme Court questioning the legitimacy of the Shariat Act of 1937, a colonial-era law that regulates marriage, divorce, and succession matters among Muslims. The argument put forth is that the act contravenes Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Petitioner Sabina, the wife of the late builder and film financer Yusuf M Lakadawala, has submitted a plea under Article 32 of the Constitution. The plea aims to secure her fundamental rights, ensuring a fair and just right to inherit the estates of her deceased husband, who died in jail on September 9, 2021. Sabina argues that her rights have been violated due to the provisions of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act of 1937.

The petitioner is requesting a declaration that widows, as well as daughters and mothers of Muslim individuals who die without a will, should have the right to receive a fair share of the estates, properties, and assets left behind by their deceased husband, father, or son. The petitioner argues that this entitlement should be similar to the inheritance rights granted to individuals in other communities such as Hindus, Christians, and Parsis.

The petitioner asserts that the Shariat law, by creating a discriminatory distinction between sons on one side and daughters and widows on the other, as exemplified in the current case where the son is allocated 35 percent while she receives only 12.5 percent, is unconstitutional and invalid. She contends that she is entitled to a just and fair share comparable to the provisions in the personal laws of other communities.

The plea also contends that there is a legitimate expectation among the citizens of India to consider the implementation of a Uniform Civil Code. The petitioner emphasizes the significance of this, particularly in light of the development and passage of the Women's Reservation Bill on September 18, 2023, which is seen as a landmark moment for gender equality, especially in terms of women's political leadership. The petitioner suggests that similar steps should be taken by the Parliament to streamline all respective personal laws. The plea underscores the potential role of the highest judiciary in prompting or initiating this development by directing lawmakers to contemplate bringing about parity between men and women in various aspects of life, considering the interests of the evolving future society.

The petitioner, who has also initiated a partition suit, argues that her in-laws contend, based on the Shariat law, that she is entitled to only 12.5 percent of her late husband's estates. In contrast, her stepson is claimed to have a 35 percent share, while the two step-daughters would also have a combined 35 percent of the husband's estates, which are valued at hundreds of crores. She asserts that when she entered into marriage with her late husband in 2007, despite a significant age difference, it was on the understanding that, as his wife and partner, she would jointly own and possess the entire estates and properties, with a 50 percent share in the event of his death.

The petitioner further contends that her husband was unable to transfer the ownership through proper documentation during his lifetime due to being in jail after being arrested by the Enforcement Directorate. She alleges that the undue influence exerted by her in-laws posed a significant obstacle to her husband effectuating the transfer.

In challenging the legitimacy of Section 2 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, the petitioner, represented by advocate Usha Nandini V, argues in her plea that this section is flawed. She contends that our colonial rulers, driven by a desire to maintain and prolong their authority, adopted the "divide and rule" philosophy, fostering divisions among communities. The plea asserts that, as part of this policy, the colonial administration hindered the efforts of social reformers and leaders of the national freedom struggle who sought to establish uniform laws applicable to all, irrespective of community affiliation. The plea suggests that, under the guise of respecting the personal laws of different communities, the colonial authorities thwarted attempts to create equitable laws for all individuals.

The plea argues that the British policy was highly questionable, bipartisan, and motivated solely by the desire to perpetuate their vested interests. It criticizes the British for not applying the Shariat to civil and criminal matters, yet allowing the recognition of personal laws that are unjust and discriminatory towards women. The petitioner asserts that this statutory acknowledgment was done in the guise of respecting religious sentiments, but it essentially amounted to adhering to unjust, anti-women, and conservative views.

Additionally, the plea emphasizes that the petitioner should not be denied relief simply because the Law Commission or the Government is currently seized of the matter. It implies that the ongoing consideration by these entities should not hinder the petitioner's right to seek remedies for the alleged injustices.

The statement emphasizes that the core issue at hand pertains to fundamental rights, specifically the equal right of inheritance, with the objective of putting an end to discrimination. It asserts that this is not a matter where the court lacks the authority to grant a declaration due to being a question of legislative policy. While acknowledging that Parliament has the rightful authority, power, and duty to enact legislation ensuring equal inheritance rights for women, the statement underscores that the court is not precluded from issuing a declaration affirming women's equal right of inheritance. It contends that the Shariat law, to the extent that it denies such a right, is deemed unconstitutional.

Case: Sabina Yusuf Lakadawala Vs Union of India.