Ahmedabad Women Action Group … vs Union Of India on 24 February, 1997 – Case Summary

In the case of Ahmedabad Women Action Group vs. Union of India on 24 February 1997, the Supreme Court of India was presented with a series of writ petitions filed as Public Interest Litigation. The bench, consisting of Sujata V. Manohar and K. Venkataswami, was tasked with examining the constitutionality of various aspects of personal law in India, particularly those related to marriage and inheritance.

Facts of the Case

The Ahmedabad Women Action Group (AWAG) and others filed a writ petition against the Union of India, challenging the constitutionality of certain aspects of Muslim Personal Law. The petitioners sought to declare polygamy, unilateral talaq (divorce), and discriminatory inheritance laws as void, arguing that they violated Articles 13, 14, and 15 of the Indian Constitution. The petitioners also challenged the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce Act), 1986, arguing that it infringed upon Articles 14 and 15.

In another writ petition, the petitioners challenged sections of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, arguing that they violated Articles 14 and 15 read with Article 13 of the Constitution of India. They also sought to declare sections of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act and the Guardians and Wards Act as void.

A third writ petition sought to declare sections of the Indian Divorce Act and the Indian Succession Act as void.

Issues Raised

The primary issues raised in these petitions revolved around the constitutionality of certain aspects of personal law in India, particularly those related to marriage, divorce, and inheritance. The petitioners argued that these laws violated the constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination.

Court’s Observations and Ruling

The court observed that these writ petitions did not merit disposal on their merits, as they involved issues of state policies, which the court would not ordinarily concern itself with. The court noted that similar attempts had been made in the past, and the court had held that the remedy lies elsewhere, not in knocking at the doors of the courts.

The court referred to several previous judgments, including Maharishi Avadhesh vs. Union of India, Reynold Rajamani and Another vs. Union of India and Another, and Pannalal Bansilal and others vs. State of A.P. and Another, among others. These judgments reiterated that matters of personal law and social reform are primarily the domain of the legislature, not the courts.

The court also noted that the Constitution of India recognizes the existence of personal laws and does not touch upon them in Part III, which deals with Fundamental Rights. The court observed that the framers of the Constitution intended to leave personal laws outside the ambit of Part III of the Constitution.

The court concluded that the arguments advanced before it should be dealt with by the legislature, not the courts. The court also noted that the question of enacting a Uniform Civil Code did not directly arise in this case.

In conclusion, the court ruled that the petitions did not merit disposal on their merits and that the issues raised should be dealt with by the legislature. The court reiterated that matters of personal law and social reform are primarily the domain of the legislature, not the courts.