On Monday, the Supreme Court requested input from the Center and sought the assistance of the attorney-general regarding a petition by a Muslim woman. The petition seeks a declaration that the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, should not be applicable to individuals who do not adhere to the Islamic faith.

Initially hesitant about invoking its jurisdiction under Article 32, a bench led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud ultimately decided to scrutinize the plea put forth by P.M. Safiya, who serves as the general secretary of the Ex-Muslims of Kerala and resides in the Alappuzha district.

Advocate Prashant Padmanabhan, representing Safiya, contended that currently, according to Sharia law, a Muslim woman, regardless of her personal beliefs, is compelled to adhere to the personal law, thereby infringing upon her fundamental rights safeguarded under Article 25 of the Constitution.

Article 25 relates to citizens’ fundamental rights to practice and profess one’s conscience, profession, and religion.

Safiya asserted that individuals who do not adhere to any belief system should have the option to be governed by the secular laws of the country, such as the Indian Succession Act, 1925, particularly in matters of both intestate and testamentary succession.

The petitioner contends that an individual who renounces Islam risks being ostracized from their community and forfeiting any inheritance rights to parental property.

“The moment you are born as Muslim, you are governed by personal law. Your entitlement rights are not governed by being a believer or non-believer,” the counsel said.

The Chief Justice of India noted that according to Section 3 of the Shariat Act, an individual must explicitly affirm their adherence to Islam for the personal law to be applicable to them. Likewise, Section 58 of The Indian Succession Act specifies that the legislation does not apply to Muslims.

The counsel argued that Safiya's father is restricted from bequeathing more than one-third of the property to her. The remaining two-thirds are designated for her brother, who has Down syndrome.

It was further argued that Safiya's daughter would not receive the entire property since, according to personal law, her father's brothers would also have a claim on Safiya's.

The bench noted that some important issues relating to interpretation of the personal law vis-vis The Indian Succession Act arose and agreed to examine the issue at length.