Lily Thomas v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 1650

INTRODUCTION

The case is associated with bigamy and conversion to every other faith to solemnize 2nd marriage. The case Lily Thomas vs Union of India (2000) addressed the important issues of bigamy and religious conversion in India. On fifth April, 2000, Justice S. Sagir Ahmed in Lily Thomas case clarified that a 2d marriage at the same time as a spouse is alive is invalid under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The case highlights the interplay between private legal guidelines and constitutional rights and highlighted that the liberty to coaching religion ought to not infringe at the rights of others. The decision additionally tested the implications of religious conversion for remarriage and affirmed the sanctity of marriage and the necessity for compliance with criminal norms.

FACTS OF THE CASE

• Sushmita Ghosh filed a petition before the ultimate courtroom mentioning her marriage with Mr. G C Ghosh as per Hindu rituals in1984.
• She similarly said that her husband stated that she had to agree to give him divorce through mutual consent.
• And due to the fact that Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 does not allow bigamy, he transformed to Islam to remarry a girl named Ms. Vinita Gupta.
  • He also produced a certificate issued with the aid of the workplace of the Shahi Qazi certifying he had embraced Islam.
• At some stage in the duration of 2002 and past several years, it has become increasingly common among Hindu adult males who were unable to comfortably divorce from their first other halves to convert to the Muslim religion specifically for marriage purposes.
  • This exercise always followed through those husbands who erred in embracing Islam for his or her 2nd marriage.
• However, they subsequently reverted to their unique religion beneath their original name and spiritual affiliation to hold their rights in houses, retain their services, and conduct all different enterprises.

ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE CASE

1. Whether a non-Muslim is transformed to the ‘Muslim’ faith with no real trade or perception and merely so as to keep away from an earlier marriage or to enter a 2nd marriage, whether the marriage entered by means of him after such conversion might be void?
2. Whether the Respondent would be answerable for bigamy below section 494 of IPC?
3. Whether it becomes applicable to have a Uniform Civil Code?

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS DISCUSSED BY THE HON’BLE COURT

The legal provisions involved in Lily Thomas Case were:

1. Article 20 of the Indian Constitution, 1950
2. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, 1950
3. Article 25 of the Constitution, 1950
4. Article 26 of the Constitution, 1950
5. Article 44 of the Constitution, 1950
6. Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code
7. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 11 (Void marriages)

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER

The petitioner raised numerous crucial arguments in Lily Thomas Case:

The petitioner questioned in the Lily Thomas Case the exercise of the use of non secular conversion to Islam as a means to engage in polygamy, that’s allowed underneath Muslim private law. The petitioner argued that this exercise violated the girl’s right to life and freedom below Article 21 of the Indian charter.

The petitioner additionally stated the precept of herbal justice as discussed within the Maneka Gandhi v. UOI case, putting forward that the respondent’s 2d marriage became contrary to this precept, in addition infringing upon Article 21 rights. It was contended that there had been a contravention of fundamental rights supplied under Article 21.

The petitioner, at the side of different Muslim women, appealed for the declaration of polygamy in Muslim private law as unconstitutional.

The petitioner in the Lily Thomas Case argued that the respondent’s conversion to Islam was no longer in line with Muslim laws. To be taken into consideration a Muslim, one is needed to renounce their previous religious faith. however, the respondent persisted to practice his Hindu faith and changed into regarded via his Hindu name, Gyan Chand Ghosh, in various professional files, which include his child’s delivery certificates, visa software to Bangladesh, electoral roll and other information. It turned out that he continued to discover as Hindu, regardless of his conversion to Islam, which changed into solely completing a second marriage with omit Vanita, disregarding the religious beliefs of both religions.

The petitioner contended that the second one marriage became void under section eleven of the Hindu Marriage Act, because it no longer met the situations specified in segment five of the identical Act. The primary situation in segment 5 changed into that there should be no dwelling spouses, which become now not met because Mrs. Ghosh became alive at the time of the second marriage. The petitioner asked that the wedding be declared void and the respondent be held accountable below phase 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, in addition to Sections 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner in the Lily Thomas Case appealed to the honourable judges to punish the perpetrator and trouble the right order or decree to make certain justice for the aggrieved party.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

The country inside the Lily Thomas Case supported the petitioners’ arguments. but, the respondents within the stated petitions supplied a common counter-argument. They claimed that, upon converting to Islam, they had been entitled to have four other halves, no matter the truth that their first spouse remained Hindu. They asserted that on the grounds that this be counted revolves around non-public legal guidelines and the respondents have been accused beneath sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), there has been no violation of any essential rights.

The respondents in the Lily Thomas Case argued that because many components of Muslim private laws aren’t codified, the rules for conversion to the Islamic religion are based on long-standing beliefs and traditions. To transform to Islam, primary necessities should be met: the individual ought to be of sound thoughts and that they ought to deliver complete consent for the conversion technique. In this situation, each of those requirements had been met and Mohammad Kareem Ghazi received a conversion certificate from Maulana Qari Mohammad Idris, Shahi Qazi.

Furthermore, the respondents invoked Article 25 of the Indian charter, which guarantees freedom of faith. They argued that you possibly can explicitly convert to every other religion, as a result exercise their constitutional right to freedom of religion.

The respondents within the Lily Thomas Case additionally pointed out that phase eleven of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is applicable best to Hindus. Since the respondent had converted to Islam, other non-public laws, other than Hindu legal guidelines, will be carried out. They contended that after the date of conversion, the respondent had abandoned the Hindu religion and therefore, all legal guidelines and acts that had been binding best on Hindus no longer applied to him.

Polygamy is illegitimate in Hindu legal guidelines, but Muslim legal guidelines allow a Muslim guy to have up to four wives. The Quran, a number one supply of Muslim legal guidelines, explicitly states that a Muslim man can marry at most 4 better halves and have to treat them with identical love and affection. Consequently, the respondents argued that the software of phase 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code required that the wedding be declared void beneath the laws. However, below the Muslim legal guidelines relevant to the respondent, he changed into allowed to have a couple of wives.

OBSERVATION

• The court said that if a Hindu guy converts to some other religion just to marry once more without going through legal outcomes, it is not a sincere conversion for religion.
• The court docket emphasized that changing religion does not routinely cease a wedding. If a husband converts to Islam whilst still married, he ought to face criminal effects under 494 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• Unlike some international locations, in India, there may be no Uniform Civil Code (UCC) governing marriages. rather, humans follow their own private laws.
  • But, the court clarified that if a person misuses their personal law to do something wrong, like marrying once more without right grounds, this is punishable.
• Even as thinking about the question of UCC the court docket said that in a diverse united states of america like India, where people follow distinctive religions and beliefs, the framers of the constitution faced the undertaking of bringing together people from diverse faiths, castes, genders, and linguistic backgrounds.
  • The directive ideas of the constitution understand and admire this diversity, striving to promote cohesion among human beings of different faiths.
  • Even as a uniform law is suited, enacting it all of sudden ought to doubtlessly harm the nation’s team spirit.
  • It might be impractical and incorrect to assume that everyone’s laws need to be observed uniformly to all people straight away.
  • Alternatively, laws ought to evolve over time, addressing specific troubles step by step via the criminal system.

JUDGMENT IN LILY THOMAS CASE

Justice S. Sagir Ahmad in Lily Thomas Case stated that if someone with a residing spouse tries to go right into a second marriage, that 2nd marriage would be invalid and void below section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The courtroom further emphasized that a subsequent marriage by using a Hindu at some stage in the lifestyles of the first marriage isn’t legally legitimate.

The Honorable court in Lily Thomas v. Union of India additionally clarified that the freedom guaranteed below Article 25 of the Indian charter must no longer infringe upon the similar freedoms of others. The constitutional framework ensures that each individual has a fundamental right to exercise their spiritual ideals and specific their perspectives in a way that does not infringe on the spiritual rights and personal freedoms of others.

It became pointed out that the time period “Islamic” generally way submission to God and not just marriage. At the same time as Muslim regulation does permit second marriages in India, it’s far more difficult to do justice to each spouse. The sanctity and purity of marriage are constantly of paramount significance. changing one’s faith entirely for the purpose of contracting a second marriage isn’t in step with the standards of faith.

If a Hindu spouse motels a criticism in opposition to their companion who, throughout the lifestyles of the first marriage, contracts a 2nd marriage after which converts to any other faith, the offense of bigamy may be dealt with below the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The apex court in Lily Thomas vs Union of India clarified that there may be no violation of Article 21, which states that “no person shall be deprived in their proper to personal liberty except as according to the mounted criminal system.” In this example, the act of contracting a second marriage at the same time as the first marriage still exists is addressed inside the Indian Penal Code’s section 494 and as such, it no longer violates Article 21.

In precis, the solutions furnished through the apex court docket in Lily Thomas Case to the troubles raised are as follows:

• There has been no violation of the essential rights under Article 21 of the constitution in this case.
• Gosh’s spiritual conversion is not in accordance with Muslim law.
• The second marriage conducted through Mr. Gosh is taken into consideration void underneath phase eleven of the Hindu Marriage Act due to the fact Mr. Gosh did no longer adhere to the requirements of Muslim law.
• Sections 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code (Code forty five of 1860) stated in phase 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, are applicable.

LILY THOMAS CASE SUMMARY

Within the case of Lily Thomas vs Union of India, Justice S. Sagir Ahmad held that if an individual with a residing spouse tries to agree to a 2d marriage, it might be taken into consideration invalid and void underneath segment eleven of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The courtroom asserted that the freedom guaranteed underneath Article 25 of the Indian constitution should not infringe upon the rights and freedoms of others. It emphasized that spiritual conversion solely for the motive of contracting a 2nd marriage is not justifiable, as the sanctity of marriage is paramount.

The courtroom within the Lily Thomas Case clarified that any offence of bigamy could be addressed underneath the Hindu Marriage Act if a Hindu partner filed a complaint against her husband who entered right into a 2d marriage while the primary marriage became still valid. In the end, the courtroom discovered no violation of essential rights beneath Article 21 and carried out relevant legal sections to claim the second one marriage void.

CONCLUSION

In this situation, the court held in favour of the wife and made it unlawful to convert to Islam simply to marry someone else whilst still being married to the primary wife.

NOTE

• Section 494 of IPC: Marrying once more during life of husband or spouse – In keeping with phase 494 of Indian penal code, whoever, having a husband or wife residing, marries anyways wherein such marriage is void by reason of its taking location at some stage in the life of such husband or spouse, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a time period which may also increase to seven years, and shall additionally be susceptible to satisfactory. It’s a non-cognizable bailable offence.
• Section 11 of HMA: Void Marriages – It says any marriage solemnised after the graduation of this Act will be null and void and can, on a petition offered with the aid of both celebration thereto [against the other party], be so declared by a decree of nullity if it contravenes anyone of the conditions specified in Clauses- (i), (iv) and (v) of phase five.
• Section 17 of the HMA – Any marriage between Hindus solemnized after the graduation of this Act is void if at the date of such marriage either party had a husband or spouse dwelling and the provisions of sections 494 and 495 of the IPC, shall observe accordingly.