ਟਿੱਪਣੀ:
ਸ਼ਰੀਯਾ ਕਾਨੂੰਨ ਲੀਗਲ ਨਹੀਂ, ਆਪਣੇ ਫ਼ਤਵੇ
ਜ਼ਬਰਦਸਤੀ ਨਹੀਂ ਮੰਨਵਾ ਸਕਦਾ, ਤਾਂ ਇਸੇ ਤਰ੍ਹਾਂ ਫਿਰ ਅਖੌਤੀ ਜਥੇਦਾਰ ਕਿਸ ਮੂੰਹ
ਨਾਲ ਸਿੱਖਾਂ ਨਾਲ ਜ਼ਬਰਦਸਤੀ ਕਰ ਰਹੇ ਹਨ। ਸਿੱਖਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਸੁਚੇਤ ਹੋਣ ਦੀ ਲੋੜ੍ਹ ਹੈ,
ਇਸ ਪੱਥਰ ਯੁਗ ਦੇ ਫ਼ਤਵਿਆਂ ਦਾ ਅੱਜ ਕੋਈ ਮੱਲ ਨਹੀਂ। ਨਿਕਲੋ ਇਸ ਦਕੀਆਨੂਸੀ ਪਰੰਪਰਾ
ਤੋਂ... ਸੰਪਾਦਕ ਖ਼ਾਲਸਾ ਨਿਊਜ਼
http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/shariat-courts-have-no-legal-sanctity-says-supreme-court/article1-1237635.aspx
Shariat
courts have no legal authority and their decisions are not legally
binding, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, saying fatwas must not violate
rights of individuals guaranteed by law.
The court, however, refused to declare Dar-ul-Qazas (Islamic courts) or
practice of issuing fatwas as illegal, saying it was informal justice
delivery system for bringing amicable settlement and it was for the
persons concerned to accept, ignore or reject it.
“Dar-ul-Qaza is neither created nor sanctioned by any law made by the
competent legislature. Therefore, the opinion or the fatwa issued by
Dar-ul-Qaza or for that matter anybody is not adjudication of dispute by
an authority under a judicial system sanctioned by law,” a bench headed
by Justice CK Prasad said.
“A qazi or mufti has no authority or powers to
impose his opinion and enforce his fatwa on any one by any coercive
method.”
Dar-ul-Qazas are religious tribunals run by Muslim religious
organisations which take up legal issues on behalf of parties who
approach them.
“Whatever may be the status of fatwa during
Mughal or British Rule, it has no place in independent India under our
constitutional scheme,” the court said, spelling out for the
first time its view of edicts issues by Muslim clerics.
Fatwas that infringed upon the rights of an
individual at the instance of strangers caused irreparable damage and
violated basic human rights, the court said, adding fatwas were
opinions and not decrees.
A person can choose to accept or ignore a fatwa even after asking for it
but if “any person or body tries to impose it, their act would be
illegal”.
“Religion cannot be allowed to be merciless to the victim. Faith cannot
be used as dehumanizing force,” the court said.
The ruling came on a public interest litigation filed by Delhi-based
advocate Vishwas Lochan Madan who said Shariat courts should be
disbanded for running a parallel judicial system.
Both the Centre and All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) argued
that fatwas were advisory in nature and no Muslim was bound to follow
those.
AIMPLB said the judgment vindicated its stand that Dar-ul-Qazas were not
running “parallel judiciary”. Board spokesman Qasim Rasool Ilyas said
“in the absence of any legal backing, Shariat courts role was of
arbitrator.
Abul Qasim Nomani of Dar-ul-Uloom, Deoband, an influential Islamic
seminary, said the verdict did not restrain clerics from issuing
advisories of a legal nature.
Any interference in personal law of Muslims would not be “acceptable”,
Nomani, who objected to Salman Rushdie’s presence at Jaipur literary
festival two years ago, said.
Madan moved the court after Dar-ul-Uloom issued fatwa forcing a woman to
separate from her husband and live with her father-in-law after he raped
her. A journalist wanted to know the marital status of the woman and
legal status of children born with the rapist’s son.
India’s Muslims, like all other religious groups, follow their own
personal laws governing marriage, divorce and succession. There is also
the option of ‘secular’ law in matters of marriage and divorce.
