Lily Thomas Case [Lily Thomas vs Union of India]

Lily Thomas, an Indian lawyer, submitted a petition to the Supreme Court and lower courts to change and improve existing laws. Her petitions led to significant legal decisions in various areas, including family laws and aspects that contradicted the Indian constitution.

Facts of Lily Thomas Case

In the case of Lily Thomas versus the Union of India and others, a significant legal decision was made. This case was initially brought forward as a writ petition and was a review of the Sarla Mugdal versus UOI case. It was based on several articles of the Indian Constitution of 1950, specifically Article 20, Article 21, Article 25 and Article 26.

The main issue at hand was the implementation of a uniform civil code, as outlined in Article 44 of the Constitution. However, the challenge was that if such uniformity were enforced, it might directly infringe upon the rights of citizens to practice and spread their religion, as protected by Article 25.

Lily Thomas Case is noteworthy because the Supreme Court ruled that a marriage would be considered void if a man entered into a second marriage without first divorcing his first wife, who is still alive. The court also held that if a man converted to Islam and then entered into a second marriage following Islamic practices, that marriage would also be considered void. The first marriage must be dissolved according to the Hindu Marriage Act for the second marriage to be valid. If a man fails to do so, he can be held liable under Section 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code for the offence of bigamy.

This decision was made to prevent men from taking advantage of religious conversions to marry multiple times without dissolving their previous marriages. It clarified that converting to Islam does not automatically end the obligations and responsibilities of a husband from his first marriage. The previous judgment in this regard was crucial in addressing the problem of men exploiting religious conversions to engage in bigamous marriages.

The Indian Penal Code defines bigamy as the act of marrying another person while the first marriage is still valid. Such bigamous relationships are illegal and the second marriage is considered void from the beginning. Most religions have their own personal laws that prohibit polygamy. However, some married men had been using conversions to Islam as a way to enter into a second marriage without dissolving their first marriages.

To address this issue, several petitions were considered by the Supreme Court, including cases like Mrs. Shushmita Ghosh versus UOI, Smt. Sarla Mudgal, President and others versus UOI and Sunita and Fatima versus UOI.

Issues Raised

The Lily Thomas Case raises the following key issues:

• Whether there should be Uniform Civil Code for all citizens?
• Whether a Hindu Husband can solemnise second marriage by converting to Islam?
• Whether the husband would be liable for bigamy under section 494 of IPC?

Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Discussed by the Hon’ble Court

The legal provisions involved in Lily Thomas Case were:

1. Article 20 of the Indian Constitution, 1950

2. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, 1950

3. Article 25 of the Constitution, 1950

4. Article 26 of the Constitution, 1950

5. Article 44 of the Constitution, 1950

6. Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code

7. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 11 (Void marriages

Contentions of the Petitioner

The petitioner raised several important arguments in Lily Thomas Case:

The petitioner questioned in Lily Thomas Case the practice of using religious conversion to Islam as a means to engage in 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.

The petitioner also cited the principle of natural justice as discussed in the Maneka Gandhi v. UOI case, asserting that the respondent’s second marriage was contrary to this principle, further infringing upon Article 21 rights. It was contended that there had been a violation of fundamental rights provided under Article 21.

The petitioner, along with other Muslim women, appealed for the declaration of polygamy in Muslim personal law as unconstitutional.

The petitioner in Lily Thomas Case argued that the respondent’s conversion to Islam was not in line with Muslim laws. To be considered a Muslim, one is required to renounce their previous religious faith. However, the respondent continued to practice his Hindu faith and was known by his Hindu name, Gyan Chand Ghosh, in various official documents, such as his child’s birth certificate, visa application to Bangladesh, electoral roll and other records. It was clear that he continued to identify as Hindu, despite his conversion to Islam, which was solely done to contract a second marriage with Miss Vanita, disregarding the religious beliefs of both religions.

The petitioner contended that the second marriage was void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, as it did not meet the conditions specified in Section 5 of the same Act. The first condition in Section 5 was that there should be no living spouses, which was not met because Mrs. Ghosh was alive at the time of the second marriage. The petitioner requested that the marriage be declared void and the respondent be held liable under Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, as well as Sections 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner in Lily Thomas Case appealed to the honourable judges to punish the offender and issue an appropriate order or decree to ensure justice for the aggrieved party.

Contentions of the Respondent

The state in Lily Thomas Case supported the petitioners’ arguments. However, the respondents in the mentioned petitions presented a common counter-argument. They claimed that, upon converting to Islam, they were entitled to have four wives, regardless of the fact that their first wife remained Hindu. They asserted that since this matter revolves around personal laws and the respondents were accused under sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), there was no violation of any fundamental rights.

The respondents in Lily Thomas Case argued that because many aspects of Muslim personal laws are not codified, the rules for conversion to the Islamic faith are based on long-standing beliefs and traditions. To convert to Islam, two primary requirements must be met: the individual should be of sound mind and they should give full consent for the conversion process. In this case, both of these requirements were satisfied and Mohammad Kareem Ghazi obtained a conversion certificate from Maulana Qari Mohammad Idris, Shahi Qazi.

Furthermore, the respondents invoked Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees freedom of religion. They argued that one can explicitly convert to another religion, thus exercising their constitutional right to freedom of religion.

The respondents in Lily Thomas Case also pointed out that Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is applicable only to Hindus. Since the respondent had converted to Islam, other personal laws, apart from Hindu laws, could be applied. They contended that after the date of conversion, the respondent had abandoned the Hindu faith and consequently, all laws and acts that were binding only on Hindus no longer applied to him.

Polygamy is prohibited in Hindu laws, but Muslim laws permit a Muslim man to have up to four wives. The Quran, a primary source of Muslim laws, explicitly states that a Muslim man can marry a maximum of four wives and should treat them with equal love and affection. Therefore, the respondents argued that the application of Section 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code required that the marriage be declared void under the laws. However, under the Muslim laws applicable to the respondent, he was allowed to have multiple wives.

Judgement in Lily Thomas Case

Justice S. Sagir Ahmad in Lily Thomas Case stated that if a person with a living spouse attempts to enter into a second marriage, that second marriage would be invalid and void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The court further emphasised that a subsequent marriage by a Hindu during the existence of the first marriage is not legally valid.

The Honorable Court in Lily Thomas v. Union of India also clarified that the freedom guaranteed under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution should not infringe upon the similar freedoms of others. The constitutional framework ensures that every individual has a fundamental right to practice their religious beliefs and express their views in a manner that does not infringe on the religious rights and personal freedoms of others.

It was pointed out that the term “Islamic” primarily means submission to God and not just marriage. While Muslim law does permit second marriages in India, it is subject to the condition that one can do justice to both spouses. The sanctity and purity of marriage are always of paramount importance. Changing one’s religion solely for the purpose of contracting a second marriage is not in line with the principles of religion.

If a Hindu spouse lodges a complaint against their partner who, during the existence of the first marriage, contracts a second marriage and then converts to another religion, the offense of bigamy will be dealt with under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The apex court in Lily Thomas vs Union of India clarified that there is no violation of Article 21, which states that “no person shall be deprived of their right to personal liberty except as per the established legal procedure.” In this case, the act of contracting a second marriage while the first marriage still exists is addressed in the Indian Penal Code’s Section 494 and as such, it does not violate Article 21.

In summary, the answers provided by the apex court in Lily Thomas Case to the issues raised are as follows:

• There has been no violation of the fundamental rights under Article 21 of the constitution in this case.
• Mr. Gosh’s religious conversion is not in accordance with Muslim Law.
• The second marriage conducted by Mr. Gosh is considered void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act because Mr. Gosh did not adhere to the requirements of Muslim Law.
• Sections 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code (Code 45 of 1860) mentioned in Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, are applicable.

Lily Thomas Case Summary

In the case of Lily Thomas vs Union of India, Justice S. Sagir Ahmad held that if an individual with a living spouse attempts to contract a second marriage, it would be considered invalid and void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The court asserted that the freedom guaranteed under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution should not infringe upon the rights and freedoms of others. It emphasised that religious conversion solely for the purpose of contracting a second marriage is not justifiable, as the sanctity of marriage is paramount.

The court in Lily Thomas Case clarified that any offence of bigamy would be addressed under the Hindu Marriage Act if a Hindu spouse filed a complaint against her husband who entered into a second marriage while the first marriage was still valid. Ultimately, the court found no violation of fundamental rights under Article 21 and applied relevant legal sections to declare the second marriage void.