The Bombay high court on Friday asked the state government to clarify its stand on the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) demanding cancellation of Darul Qazas or personal law courts. The petitioner has also sought cancellation of the Board’s registration as a society, which allows Darul Qazas to dispense justice in the case of civil and matrimonial disputes in the Muslim community.
When the matter came up for hearing before a division bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Prakash Deu Naik, the judges asked the government pleader as to what the government had to say on this issue. To which, the government pleader told the court that there are no instructions and hence, the bench asked him to take instructions and inform the court about the government’s stand on this issue on the next date of hearing. The bench posted the matter for further hearing after two weeks.
The court was hearing a PIL filed by social worker, Nazir Noor Ali Jariya, who, in his petition, has claimed that the AIMPLB exceeded its memorandum of association and rules when it set up, without legal authority, parallel courts or Darul Qazas to adjudicate on disputes in the community.
The PIL filed through Advocate Poonam Ankleshwaria said that Darul Qazas across the state be shut down and declared “unconstitutional”. The petition sought that orders passed by Darul Qazas be declared void and without legal sanctity.
The petitioner contended that the AIMPLB was constituted to adopt suitable strategies to protect and apply the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, but it constituted these Parallel Islamic Courts which are totally against its main aim and object.
According to the PIL the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, 1939, had consolidated provisions of Muslim law and clarified the position on law pertaining to marriage disputes. It said that the establishment of Darul Qazas defeated the purpose of enactment of the two laws — The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 and The Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, 1939 — since their members were granting divorce decrees in violation of these statutes.
