The Supreme Court on Thursday decided to examine the legality of the existence of Islamic and Shariat courts in the country allegedly posing challenge to the Indian Judicial system.
A bench comprising Justice A K Mathur and Justice Dalveer Bhandari admitted a PIL seeking dissolution of such courts on the ground they were acting like a parallel judicial system.
However, the Centre has maintained that the decisions of these courts are advisory in nature and in no way amounts to interference with the country's judicial system.
The PIL filed by Delhi-based advocate Vishwa Lochan Madan in 2005, has sought immediate dissolution of all Islamic and Shariat courts in India contending that criminal law was not allowed to have its natural run as the entire issue was hijacked by the clerics.
The PIL sought a ban on establishing such Islamic courts and directions to the Centre and the states to take effective steps to dissolve all Darul Qazas and Shariat courts and a declaration that fatwas have no legal sanction.
A direction was also sought that these courts should be restrained from interfering with the marital status of Indian Muslim citizens and passing any judgment, remarks or fatwas.
The PIL has sought a direction prohibiting AIMPLB and seminaries from training or appointing Qazis, Naib-Qazis or Muftis for rendering judicial services of any kind.
However, government in its affidavit had said fatwas issued by Muslim clerics are opinions and cannot be imposed or enforced on anyone.
While maintaining that fatwas issued by clerics are advisory in nature, the law and justice ministry had said, "They are not mandatory and do not compel any person to follow them and do not compel any person not to approach courts established by law for adjudication of their disputes."
The Centre said Dar-ul-Qaza and Nizam-ul-Qaza (Muslim courts) are not a parallel judicial system and did not prevent Muslims from reporting matters to the judicial machinery set up under the laws of the land.
The PIL had cited the example of a fatwa issued by Deoband-based seminary Darul-Uloom in the Imrana rape.
The Centre had contended that the case of Imrana, whose father-in-law was given a 10-year prison term in 2006 for raping her, was not referred to any Dar-ul-Qaza or Nizam-ul-Qaza.
The petitioner had also cited the example of the case of Asoobi in Gurgaon, Haryana, resembling the case of Imrana, where the Darul Uloom issued fatwas deciding the course of action in the incidents.
The government had said the Dar-ul-Qaza and Nizam-ul-Qaza are a form of alternative forum for redressing dispute, which perform a conciliatory role without any power of enforcement.
"Those who do not want to resort to Dar-ul-Qaza or Nizam-ul-Qaza (which are interchangeable terms) are at liberty and fully entitled to resort to course of law," the affidavit had said, adding that, "There is no question of compelling anyone to not report the matter to judicial machinery".
Further, it had said the terms "Shariat Court", "Qazi", "Naib Qazi" and "Mufti" have not created any confusion in the mind of the "alleged uneducated multitude of Indian Muslim citizenry".
"The Darul-Qaza does not force or coerce any party before it to accept any of its verdict by invoking terror of God's wrath," the affidavit said.
Besides the Centre, the notices were issued to AIMPLB, Islamic seminary Darul Uloom, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Assam, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, West Bengal and Delhi, where, according to the petition, Islamic courts have been formed.
The petitioner had contended that the AIMPLB had claimed to have established Darul Qaza (Muslim Courts) in Thane (Maharashtra), Akola Dholiya (Rajasthan), Indore (M.P.), South and East Delhi, Asansol and Purulia (W.B.), Lucknow and Sitapur (Uttar Pradesh).
The petitioner had sought a direction from the Court to the AIMPLB and Darul Uloom, Deoband, other seminaries and Muslim organisations asking them to refrain from establishing a parallel Muslim Judicial System (Nizam-e-Qaza).