FACTS
Lily Thomas, an Indian lawyer, filed a writ case questioning the legitimacy of her husband G.C. Ghosh's second marriage to Vanita Gupta following his conversion to Islam. The pair had been married since May 10, 1984, according to Hindu tradition. Ghosh's conversion was interpreted as a ploy to avoid the legal repercussions of bigamy under Hindu law, which forbids a man from marrying another woman while his first marriage is still valid and in force.
The case originated from a broader background in which many Hindu males were purportedly converting to Islam in order to enter second marriages, taking advantage of Muslim personal law's leniency toward polygamy. This practice aroused serious concerns about women's rights and the sanctity of marriage, causing Lily Thomas and other petitioners to seek legal action.
ISSUES
The Supreme Court was tasked with addressing several pivotal questions:
- Uniform Civil Code (UCC): Should there be a uniform civil code applicable to all citizens irrespective of their religion?
- Validity of Second Marriage: Can a Hindu husband legally contract a second marriage by converting to Islam?
- Bigamy Prosecution: Is such a husband liable for prosecution under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for bigamy?
CONTENTIONS
Petitioner’s Arguments (Lily Thomas contended that):
- Violation of Fundamental Rights: The practice of converting to Islam solely for the purpose of remarriage violated women's rights under the Indian Constitution's Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty). She claimed that this approach violated the dignity and independence of women who were left defenseless in such situations.
- Natural Justice: The petitioner referenced principles established in prior landmark decisions, such as Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, claiming that the respondent's acts violated natural justice and fundamental rights.
- Unconstitutionality of Polygamy: Thomas sought a declaration that polygamy under Muslim personal law was unconstitutional, emphasizing that it perpetuated gender inequality and violated women's rights.
- Legal Framework: She pointed out that under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, any marriage contracted while one spouse is alive is void ab initio. Therefore, Ghosh's second marriage should be declared invalid.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- Religious Freedom: Ghosh's conversion was framed as an exercise of his right to religious freedom under Article 25 of the Constitution, which allows individuals to practice their religion freely.
- Legal Validity: It was argued that since Muslim personal law permits polygamy, Ghosh's actions were legally permissible within that framework.
- No Violation of Rights: The respondent claimed that there was no infringement upon Lily Thomas's rights since he had converted and remarried according to his new faith.
RATIO DECIDENDI
- Validity of Second Marriage: The court ruled that if a person with a live spouse attempts to enter into a second marriage, it is regarded null and void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. This provision specifies that any marriage is void if either party's spouse is alive at the time of the marriage.
- In Gopal Lal v. State of Rajasthan [AIR 1979 SC 713] Murtaza Fazal Ali, J., speaking for the Court, observed as under: Where a spouse contracts a second marriage while the first marriage is still subsisting the spouse would be guilty of bigamy under Section 494 if it is proved that the second marriage was a valid one in the sense that the necessary ceremonies required by law or by custom have been actually performed. The voidness of the marriage under Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act is in fact one of the essential ingredients of Section 494 because the second marriage will become void only because of the provisions of Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act
- Religious Conversion for Marriage: The court determined that changing to Islam simply for the purpose of marrying another person while remaining married to someone else is not a genuine conversion. Thus, such a marriage would be considered void ab initio (null from the start) because it violates the norms of both Hindu and Muslim personal laws.
- In of Bombay v. Ganga [ILR (1880) 4 Bom. 330] which obviously is a case decided prior to the coming into force of the Hindu Marriage Act, it was held by the Bombay High Court that where a Hindu married woman having a Hindu husband living marries a Mohammedan after conversion to “Islam”, she commits the offence of polyandry as, by mere conversion, the previous marriage does not come to an end.
- In Sayeda Khatoon v. M. Obadiah [(1944-45) 49 CWN 745] it was held that a marriage solemnized in India according to one personal law cannot be dissolved according to another personal law simply because one of the parties has changed his or her religion
- In Amar Nath v. Amar Nath [AIR 1948 18 Lah. 129] it was held that the nature and incidence of a Vedic marriage bond, between the parties are not in any way affected by the conversion to Christianity of one of them and the bond will retain all the characteristics of a Hindu marriage notwithstanding such conversion unless there shall follow upon the conversion of one party, repudiation or desertion by the other, and unless consequential legal proceedings are taken and a decree is made as provided by the Native Converts Marriage Dissolution Act
- In the case of Gul Mohd. v. Emperor [AIR 1947 Nag. 121] the High Court held that the conversion of a Hindu wife to Mohammedanism does not, ipso facto, dissolve the marriage with her Hindu husband. It was further held that she cannot, during his lifetime, enter into a valid contract of marriage with another person. Such person having sexual relations with a Hindu wife converted to Islam, would be guilty of adultery under Section 497IPC as the woman before her conversion was already married and her husband was alive
- Bigamy Under IPC: The justices emphasized that anyone who enters into a second marriage while their first marriage is still lawful would be guilty of bigamy under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This is applicable even if the individual claims to have changed to another religion.
- Fundamental Rights: The court clarified that the freedom of religion, as provided under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be used as a shield to evade other laws pertaining to marriage and bigamy. The sanctity of marriage must be upheld, and using conversion as a means to engage in polygamous relationships undermines this principle.
- Call for Uniform Civil Code: The case also highlighted the need for a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) to ensure that all citizens are treated equally under secular laws, irrespective of their religious affiliations. This was seen as crucial in preventing misuse of personal laws for ulterior motives.
- The Supreme Court in John Vallamattom v. Union of India [ (2003) 6 SCC 611] has observed: “It is a matter of regret that Article 44 of the Constitution has not been given effect to. Parliament is still to step in for framing a common civil code in the country. A common civil code will help the cause of national integration by removing the contradictions based on ideologies.”
HELD
- Bigamy Under IPC: The Court reaffirmed that contracting a second marriage while the first is still valid constitutes bigamy under Section 494 IPC. It emphasized that such marriages are void ab initio under Hindu law.
- Religious Conversion Misuse: The Court condemned the misuse of religious conversion for ulterior motives, stating that conversions should not be employed as a means to circumvent legal obligations or moral responsibilities associated with marriage.
- Uniform Civil Code Advocacy: While not directly mandating a UCC, the Court acknowledged the necessity for legislative reform to address disparities in personal laws affecting women's rights across different religions.
- Rights Under Article 21: The ruling clarified that while individuals have rights under Article 25 to practice their religion, these rights do not extend to actions that infringe upon others' fundamental rights—particularly those involving exploitation or discrimination against women.
- Legal Precedent: This case set a significant precedent in Indian jurisprudence regarding marital laws and gender equality, reinforcing the notion that personal laws must align with constitutional mandates concerning individual rights
CONCLUSION
The Lily Thomas v. Union of India case serves as a pivotal moment in Indian legal history, addressing critical issues surrounding bigamy, religious conversion, and women's rights within the framework of personal laws. The Supreme Court's ruling not only reaffirmed existing legal principles but also underscored the need for comprehensive reforms in family law to ensure equality and justice for all citizens irrespective of their religion.