BENCH: Justice R.P. Sethi & Justice S. Saghir Ahmad
FACTS:
The case of Lily Thomas v. Union of India & Others marked a significant legal ruling in India. Initially filed as a writ petition, it served as a review of the Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India case. The case was examined under several provisions of the Indian Constitution, including Articles 20, 21, 25, and 26.
At its core, the case revolved around the implementation of a Uniform Civil Code, as envisioned in Article 44 of the Constitution. However, concerns arose that such uniformity could potentially infringe upon the fundamental right to freely practice and propagate religion, as protected by Article 25.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Lily Thomas was pivotal, establishing that a marriage would be considered void if a man entered into a second marriage without first legally divorcing his living spouse. Furthermore, if a man converted to Islam and then married again under Islamic law without dissolving his first marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, the second marriage would also be deemed void. In such cases, the man could be prosecuted under Sections 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code for bigamy.
This judgment aimed to prevent the misuse of religious conversions as a means to circumvent laws against polygamy. It reinforced the principle that religious conversion does not automatically absolve a man of his marital responsibilities from a previous marriage. The ruling was instrumental in curbing the practice of men exploiting religious conversion to enter into multiple marriages without legally ending their existing ones.
Under the Indian Penal Code, bigamy is defined as marrying another person while the first marriage remains valid. Such marriages are illegal, rendering the second marriage void from inception. While most religions have personal laws prohibiting polygamy, some men had been using conversion to Islam as a loophole to marry again without legal consequences.
To address this issue, the Supreme Court considered multiple petitions, including Mrs. Sushmita Ghosh v. Union of India, Sarla Mudgal & Others v. Union of India, and Sunita & Fatima v. Union of India, further strengthening legal safeguards against bigamous marriages.
ISSUES:
The main issue was over whether a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) should be implemented for all citizens remains a contentious issue, as it seeks to standardize personal laws across religions while balancing the right to religious freedom under Article 25 of the Constitution. One key legal question that has emerged in this context is whether a Hindu husband can solemnize a second marriage by converting to Islam without dissolving his first marriage.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The Apex Court Lily Thomas v. Union of India case, ruled that if a person with a living spouse enters into a second marriage, it is invalid and void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Court reaffirmed that a Hindu cannot legally remarry while the first marriage is still in existence. The Court also emphasized that Article 25 of the Constitution, which guarantees religious freedom, must not infringe upon the rights of others. It clarified that "Islamic" signifies submission to God, not just marriage, and that while Muslim law permits polygamy, it requires equal treatment of all spouses. Converting solely to remarry does not align with true religious principles. If a Hindu spouse files a complaint against their partner for remarrying after conversion, the case will be governed by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Supreme Court further held that such cases do not violate Article 21, as personal liberty is subject to legal procedures, and bigamy remains an offense under Section 494 of the IPC.
The Supreme Court in Lily Thomas v. Union of India relied on several key reasons to make its judgment. First, it emphasized the importance of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which explicitly prohibits bigamy. The Court cited Section 11, which renders a second marriage void if the first marriage still exists. It held that the act of converting to Islam solely to enter into a second marriage without dissolving the first marriage is a legal contravention. The Court also referred to Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalizes bigamy, and affirmed that this provision applies even when the person converts to another religion. The ruling underscored that the act of bigamy, irrespective of religious conversion, remains an offense under Indian law.
Additionally, the Court relied on constitutional principles, particularly the interpretation of Articles 25 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. It clarified that while individuals have the fundamental right to practice and propagate their religion under Article 25, such freedoms are not absolute and must not infringe upon the rights of others. The Court stressed that religious conversion cannot be used as a tool to bypass personal laws or engage in unlawful activities such as bigamy. Moreover, the Court reasoned that the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act and the IPC do not violate the right to personal liberty under Article 21, as the restrictions are legally justified and in accordance with established legal procedures.
ANALYSIS:
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Lily Thomas v. Union of India marked a significant step in safeguarding personal laws against the misuse of religious conversions. The Court focused on the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, specifically Section 11, which declares a second marriage void if the first marriage is still valid. The ruling emphasized that a Hindu husband cannot legally remarry while his first marriage remains intact, even if he converts to Islam. The Court's decision aimed to close the loophole where individuals converted to Islam solely to remarry without first obtaining a legal divorce, thereby circumventing the law against bigamy. The judgment also reinforced the application of Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalizes bigamy, ensuring that those who engage in such practices would face legal consequences.
Additionally, the Court addressed the constitutional balance between religious freedom and the rights of others. It clarified that while Article 25 guarantees the right to practice religion, this right is not absolute and cannot infringe upon the personal rights of others. The Court highlighted that religious conversion should not be exploited as a means to evade legal obligations, particularly concerning marriage and bigamy. The ruling affirmed that personal laws, including the Hindu Marriage Act and provisions under the IPC, are constitutionally valid and do not violate the right to personal liberty under Article 21. This decision reinforced the notion that legal safeguards must prevail over the misuse of religious freedom to circumvent established laws.
info@adhwaitha.com
