‘SC ruling does not interfere with Muslim personal law’
- The Muslim Personal Law Board has made strong reactions on the Supreme Court’s judgment that permits Muslim parents to adopt a child.
- Shabnam Hashmi, a civil rights activist and petitioner in this case, has discarded the suggestion that this verdict ‘interferes’ with personal law board. According to her, SC has just extended the scope of a Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.
- She challenged the personal board laws in the Supreme Court in order to get a legal recognition, as a parent of her adopted daughter Seher Hashmi Raza. She says that the child has no control over which family he or she is going to.
- When they adopted Seher, people told them that there’s no law imposed for non-Hindus under which they can adopt a child. Therefore, they had to get her under Guardianship and Wards Act. She states that the SC’s verdict has finally given the legal rights to her daughter. According to her, their ward and guardian relationship has changed lawfully.
- Earlier, there was no law of adoption for non-Hindu, non-Sikhs, and non-Jain people. The parents from other faiths were accorded with the status ‘guardian’, and the adopted children were called as wards.
- The Supreme Court Bench led by Chief Justice India give judgment- “Personal beliefs and faiths, though must be honoured, cannot dictate the operations of the provisions of an enabling statue.”
- The personal law will continue to reign, but when it comes to adoption, if anyone from minority community wants to have alternative to Juvenile Justice Act, which is presently refuting the personal law, then the Juvenile Justice Act would prevail, “until such times that the vision of a Uniform Civil Code is achieved”.
- According to Dr. Mahmood, SC’s observation about getting the Uniform Civil Code is something that makes the judgment complete. The SCs’ view of not altering the Muslim Personal Laws is originated from the prevailing provisions preserved in our Constitution.
- Abdur Raheem Qureshi, spokesperson of AIMPLB, has now stated that they will now explore legal options. According to him, the SC’s verdict has “interfered” with the basic rights defined under Article 25 of Indian Constitution.
- Uniform Civil Code
- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act
- Article 25