Visha Madan vs.

Union of India
The petitioner asserts that the All India Muslim Personal Law board is trying to establish a
parallel judicial system in India. (The All India Muslim Personal Law board seeks to apply the
Islamic judicial system through Islamic courts of arbitration and dispute resolution).
Fundamentally, the petitioner is saying that Muslim personal law severely constrains the rights of
women and therefore the effects of the All India Muslim Personal Law board is making it
difficult for Muslim women to get justice under the established judicial system. The actual courts
of India are not limited by Muslim personal law, they can apply state-made law to Muslim
women and, as a result, give them a higher standard of welfare which they would not receive if
Muslim personal law was applied. The petitioner says that the Islamic courts, which are not
mandated by any legislative authority, are running in the country and giving judgments according
to Sharia; this is termed a parallel justice system by the petitioner which he aims to get rid of.
Petitioner mentions some outrageous Fatwas which go severely against the rights of women, the
example is of a woman being raped by her father-in-law and a subsequent fatwa declaring that
the wife had become forever unlawful to her husband since the father-in-law had had sexual
relations with her. Petitioner alleges that All India Muslim Personal law board supports these
Fatwas and that the adjudication of all disputes is a function of the state and cannot be done so
by any other system.
Petitioner claims the following:
1. Muslim courts are absolutely illegal,
2. Judgments and Fatwas pronounced by these informal courts have no place in the
Constitution,
3. Union of India must disband these courts,
4. No further parallel Muslim Judicial system should be established.
Response of the Union of India (counter argument)
All fatwas are advisory in nature and no Muslim has a legal obligation to follow the fatwa.
Fatwas are advisory in nature and they are not mandatory and do not prohibit any Muslim from
approaching the Courts established by the law. The Muslim courts do not administer criminal
justice and only function as arbitrators, mediators, and negotiators in family disputes. The courts
provide dispute resolution outside the formal courts and therefore serve as an alternative dispute
resolution mechanism so people can dispense matters in an inexpensive manner. These courts
have no power to enforce their decisions, therefore they do not go against the Indian Judicial
System in any way.
Judgment of the court
The grievance of the petitioner that the Muslim courts are a parallel judicial system is
misconceived
The Muslim courts of arbitration are not made by any state made law and have not been formally
enacted in any way. However, the judgments and fatwas are only advisory in nature and these
courts have no powers of enforcement. They do not prevent anyone from seeking formal justice

through the Indian courts and as long as the informal courts do not try to impose their decisions,
there is no parallel justice system. The decrees of the Dar ul Qaza (Islamic courts) are not
binding upon the Indian courts or the state or the individual. It is informal justice delivery with
the objective of bringing about amicable settlement between the parties. It is up to the parties to
accept, ignore, or reject the decisions.
The court recognized that social pressure can force a person to follow a fatwa, therefore, it says
that fatwas should only be sought by the concerned and immediate parties and not total strangers.
This is to prevent strangers from randomly issuing fatwas on others and affecting their lives in
drastic ways. The fatwa should first be asked for by the concerned person who is directly
involved in the matter. It would be a violation of basic human rights for total strangers to affect
the rights and duties of other individuals through fatwas.
The petition of Vishwa Madan was dismissed.
Punch line which Sir talked about in class: Fatwas are not illegal per se but if they are
issued in order to infringe upon the rights of others, they are illegal.