LILY THOMAS V UNION OF INDIA (AIR 2000 SC 1650)
Diksha
Graphic Era Hill University
Introduction
The landmark case of Lily Thomas V Union of India deals with the abuse of religious conversion to bypass the bigamy laws in India. The case became prominent when Sushmita Ghosh, the petitioner, approached the Supreme Court after her husband, G.C. Ghosh (Mohd. Karim Ghazi), converted to Islam to marry another woman without annulling their current Hindu marriage. The case was a test of the conflict between personal laws and the secular laws that regulate marriage in India. In its judgment, the Supreme Court held that conversion to Islam does not automatically give a Hindu husband the right to remarry without procuring an interlocutory divorce from his earlier wife.It stated that a second marriage of this kind would be void and that the husband would be punishable under Sections 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code for bigamy. The decision strengthened the legal precept that religious conversion may not be used to avoid compliance with legal norms and maintain the dignity of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act.
Case Details
SCR Citation
[2000] 3 S.C.R. 1081
Year/Volume
2000/Volume 3
Date of Judgment
05 May 2000
Bench
Justice R.P. Sethi and Justice S. Saghir Ahmad
Petitioner
Lily Thomas, Etc.
Disposal Nature
Petitions Dismissed
Neutral Citation
2000 INSC 293
Judgment Delivered by
Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.P Sethi
Respondent
Union Of India
Case Type
Writ Petition (Civil)/798/1995
Order/Judgment
Judgment
Facts of the Case
Sushmita Ghosh approached the Supreme Court filing a petition stating her marriage with Mr. G C Ghosh according to Hindu traditions in 1984.
She also asserted that her husband told her that she should consent to granting him divorce by mutual consent.
As the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 prohibits bigamy, he converted to Islam so that he could re-marry a lady named Ms. Vinita Gupta.
He also obtained a certificate from the office of the Shahi Qazi attesting that he had accepted Islam.
In the years 2002 and the previous few years, it became common practice among Hindu men who were not able to get a divorce from their previous wives to become Muslim religion adherents specifically for the purpose of marriage.
It was always followed by those husbands who made mistakes in accepting Islam for their second marriage.
But they later reconverted to their original religion with their original name and religious title in order to preserve their right in properties, carry on their services, and undertake all other affairs.
Issues Raised
Whether a non-Muslim who has converted to the Muslim religion with no real change or belief and only with the intention of avoiding a previous marriage or for going into a second marriage, whether the marriage gone into by him subsequent to such conversion would be void?
Whether the respondent can be held guilty of bigamy under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code?
Is the implementation of a Uniform Civil Code necessary and beneficial?
Contentions of the Petitioner
The petitioner in the Lily Thomas case submitted a few important arguments that questioned the practice of religious conversion to Islam to justify polygamy, which is allowed under Muslim personal law.
The petitioner argued that this practice violated the women’s right to life and freedom under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. In order to substantiate her point the petitioner also quoted the doctrine of natural justice dealt with in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. UOI, claiming that the second marriage of the respondent was against the doctrine of natural justice, another violation of the rights under Article 21.
The petitioner, along with other Muslim women, sought a legal declaration that polygamy under Muslim personal law is unconstitutional.
One of the main points was that the respondent’s Islamic conversion was not authentic or according to Islamic principles. For a person to be considered a Muslim, they should abandon their former religious beliefs, but the respondent still regarded himself as a Hindu in most official documents, such as his child’s birth certificate, visa application to Bangladesh, electoral roll, and others. Notwithstanding his conversion to Islam, he went on to practice Hindu rituals and did not change his Hindu name, Gyan Chand Ghosh, with the clear implication that the conversion was done only to arrange a second marriage with Miss Vanita without respect for the religious laws of either Hinduism or Islam.
The petitioner also contended that the second marriage was void according to Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, as it did not meet the requirements set out in Section 5.
The petitioner also contended that the second marriage was void according to Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, as it did not meet the requirements set out in Section 5.
The first requirement under Section 5 is that neither spouse should have a living spouse when the marriage takes place. Since Mrs. Ghosh was still alive when the respondent married Miss Vanita, the second marriage was illegal.
Accordingly, the petitioner requested a declaration that the marriage was void and asked the court to hold the respondent liable under Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, and for bigamy under Sections 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code. Finally, the petitioner prayed to the Hon’ble Court to punish the culprit suitably and pass an order or decree providing justice to the aggrieved party.
Contentions of the Respondent
The petitioners' respondents raised the general counter-argument that on becoming Muslims, they gained the right to maintain up to four wives, albeit their first wife was Hindu. They argued that, as the matter involved was of personal law and their prosecution was under IPC provisions, their fundamental rights were not violated in any way.
It was contended by the respondents that several things under Muslim personal laws are yet to be codified, and the rules prescribing conversion to Islam are based upon long-established practices and usages. They continued that two requisite conditions should be fulfilled for converting to Islam effectively: the subject must be in a sound state of mind and must give complete and uncoerced consent. Here, both the requirements were met, and Mohammad Kareem Ghazi received a certificate of conversion from Maulana Qari Mohammad Idris, Shahi Qazi.
The respondents also relied on Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, which assures the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate one's religion. They argued that converting to another religion was a valid exercise of this constitutional right.
The respondents also contended that Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is applicable only to Hindus. As the respondent had become a Muslim, he was not subject to Hindu personal laws anymore, and such laws ceased to apply to him upon his conversion.
Whereas Hindu personal laws do not allow polygamy, Muslim personal laws allow a Muslim man to marry a maximum of four wives if he treats them with equal love and justice.
They quoted the Quran as one of the main sources of Muslim law, which clearly states that a Muslim man is allowed to have more than one wife under these circumstances.
Thus, the respondents argued that the imposition of Sections 494 and 495 of the IPC—pertaining to bigamy—would necessitate that the marriage be considered void under the law. However, under the Muslim personal laws that currently apply to the respondent, polygamy was legal.
Judgment
1. Validity Of Second Marriage: Justice S. Sagir Ahmad held that if a person attempts to enter into a second marriage despite having a living spouse, such a marriage would be invalid and void under Section 11 of The Hindu Marriage Act,1955. The court highlighted that under Hindu Law a marriage done after subsistence of first marriage is not legally permissible.
2. Religious Freedom and Article 25
The Hon’ble Apex Court clarified that the freedom of religion provided under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution must not violate the rights of others. While every person has a right to profess and practice his religion this right must be exercised in such a manner that it does not infringe the religious freedoms or personal rights of others.
3. Religious Conversion and Bigamy
The court observed that the spirit of Islam is one of submission to God, rather than the potential to enter into multiple marriages. Muslim law may allow polygamy, but it is tied to the general condition that the husband must have the capacity to give equal justice and treatment to all wives. The sanctity of marriage must always be respected, and conversion for the purpose of entering a second marriage only is contrary to the real ideals of religion.
4. Legal Ramifications of Bigamy
The court held that when a Hindu spouse makes a complaint against her/his spouse who has entered into a second marriage and has then converted to another religion, the crime of bigamy will be tried under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Section 17 of the Act applies Sections 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, to such cases.
5. Article 21 and Personal Liberty
The Supreme Court categorically ruled that there is no infringement of Article 21, which provides for the right to liberty of the person except according to procedure established by law. Contracting a second marriage while the first one remains intact is a cognizable offence under Section 494 of the IPC and therefore does not infringe upon the fundamental rights safeguarded under Article 21.
6. Uniform Law
There are no Indian laws that talk about marriage as it occurs according to each individual’s own regulations. Due to this, such issues could not be codified, and their handling according to the universal civil code would be unjust to the personal views of every individual.
But misconduct done in the name of such personal law is unlawful, as the Supreme Court held in this case when it held that it was illegal to become an Islamic convert and marry another while one remained married to one’s first wife.
In India, marriage is arranged under the personal laws of the spouses. Hence, it is unrealistic to codify them uniformly and apply the uniform civil code. Any illegality done against personal law will always be penalized with the prescribed punishments, as provided by law.
Conclusion
The Court had ruled in favor of the wife in this instance to make it illegal to convert to Islam so that one may marry another person while still married to the initial wife.
Reference
1. Lily Thomas Case [Lily Thomas vs Union of India] – LawBhoomi
https://lawbhoomi.com/lily-thomas-case-lily-thomas-vs-union-of-india
2. Lily Thomas v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 1650 – Drishti Judiciary https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/hindu-law/lily-thomas-v-union-of-india-air-2000-sc-1650
3. Lily Thomas v. Union of India – kanoonjunction.com