INDIA IS currently experiencing its Shah Bano 2.0 moment, with the hijab controversy rearing its ugly head. That landmark case marked the beginning of the battle of Muslim women against Muslim Personal Law (MPL), when, in April 1978, 62-year-old Shah Bano filed a case in the civil court against her divorced husband and advocate from Indore, Mohammad Ahmed Khan—whom she had married in 1932 and had five children with—demanding maintenance from him under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The case was filed after Khan had asked her to move out, to a residence separate from that of his second wife and himself. Khan argued in court that he was only required to support Shah Bano and her children during the iddat, that is, the waiting period a woman must observe after the death of her husband or her divorce before she could marry another man. The length of the iddat is usually three months after either of the two instances. In case the woman is pregnant, the period extends to childbirth. Khan's argument was supported by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) which contended that courts could not take the liberty of interfering in matters laid out under MPL, adding that it would violate the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937. The board said that according to the Act, the courts were to make decisions on matters of divorce, maintenance and other family issues based on Shariat. The Supreme Court ruling in 1985 held that CrPC, 1973, which applies to all Indian citizens regardless of religion, could apply in this case. Upholding the decision of the high court, then Chief Justice of India (CJI) YV Chandrachud ordered maintenance to Shah Bano under CrPC, even hiking the sum from a paltry ₹ 185 per month. The case was considered a milestone, with the ruling emphasising the need for a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) and gender equality irrespective of the individual religion professed by an appellant. "The liability imposed by Section 125 to maintain close relatives who are indigent is founded upon the individual's obligation to the society to prevent vagrancy and destitution. That is the moral edict of the law and morality cannot be clubbed with religion," the CJI had held. What followed, though, was a shameful showcasing of political pusillanimity, minority appeasement and gross gender injustice, with the then Congress Government of Rajiv Gandhi overturning the ruling by passing a new law in Parliament called the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 which said that maintenance need be provided only during the iddat and if the woman could not support herself or her children, the Waqf Board had to provide for her and her children. Shah Bano's lawyer, Danial Latifi, challenged the validity of the Act but to no avail. Subsequently, Shah Bano withdrew her case. A momentous battle for the equality and dignity of Muslim women, especially in the case of marriage, was lost to ensure political gains.

Muslim appeasment

End of Appeasement

A Preface to the Future

Shah Bano 2.0