Why is the Supreme Court Examining Polygamy Again?

The Supreme Court has sought the Centre’s response to a petition challenging the constitutional validity of polygamy under Muslim Personal Law.

What Are the Petitioners Seeking?

• The petitioners have challenged Section 2 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, which permits application of Muslim personal law in matters including marriage.
• They argue that permitting polygamy violates Articles 14, 15 and 16 relating to equality and non-discrimination.
• They have sought codification of Muslim Personal Law in conformity with constitutional principles of gender equality.
• They want compulsory registration of Muslim marriages and divorces with State authorities.
• They seek protection of the first wife and children’s rights where a subsequent marriage is contracted during an existing marriage.
• They have also sought a direction to the Law Commission of India to prepare a draft for codifying Muslim Personal Law.

What Has the Court Ruled Before?

• In Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India (1995), the Supreme Court held that a Hindu husband cannot convert to Islam merely to contract a second marriage without dissolving the first.
• The Court ruled that such a second marriage is void and punishable for bigamy.
• In Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2000), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the Sarla Mudgal ruling on conversion and second marriage.
• The Court has previously stressed that religious conversion cannot be used as a device to evade monogamy laws.

Does Islam Sanction Polygamy?

• Islamic law permits a Muslim man to marry up to four wives in limited circumstances, subject to equal and just treatment.
• The Quranic condition of maintaining complete equality among wives is presented as a strict requirement rather than an unrestricted right.
• The article notes that Islamic teachings also emphasise monogamy where equal treatment cannot be ensured.

Key Constitutional Issue

• The case raises the question of whether personal laws permitting polygamy can be tested against Fundamental Rights, especially equality and gender justice.
• The wider debate involves balancing religious freedom, personal law, gender equality and constitutional morality.