The Supreme Court’s continuing examination of Muslim inheritance and succession laws has wider constitutional significance; the court has observed that the outcome of the Sabarimala reference could affect how the challenge is taken.
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, together with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, is hearing petitions challenging provisions of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 on inheritance and succession.
The current hearing happened on 9 September 2026.
Why Is Muslim Inheritance Law Being Challenged?
The petitioners have argued that certain Muslim personal-law rules on inheritance discriminate against women because, in certain circumstances, women can receive a smaller share of inherited property than men.
The challenge is based on constitutional guarantees such as equality and non-discrimination. The petition seeks judicial scrutiny of intestate inheritance and testamentary succession under the 1937 Shariat Act.
The Supreme Court is also examining the larger question of whether personal laws can be tested against fundamental rights.
Supreme Court Raises Parliament Versus Judiciary Question
One of the central questions before the bench is whether such reforms should be undertaken by Parliament or whether the judiciary can intervene through its writ jurisdiction.
This is particularly significant because Article 25(2)(b) enables the State to make laws for social welfare and reform and to open Hindu religious institutions to all classes and sections.
The court's consideration thus goes beyond inheritance itself and touches on the constitutional limits of judicial intervention in matters of religion and personal law.
Why the Sabarimala Verdict Matters
The Supreme Court has indicated that its forthcoming decision on the Sabarimala reference may have a bearing on the Muslim inheritance challenge.
The nine-judge Constitution Bench examining the Sabarimala reference has considered fundamental questions regarding religious freedom, constitutional morality, personal rights and the extent to which courts can scrutinise religious practices.
The reference came from review proceedings related to the 2018 Sabarimala ruling, in which the five-judge Constitution Bench allowed women of all ages to enter the Sree Ayyappa temple in Kerala.
The larger constitutional principles emerging from the nine-judge bench, therefore, could govern how courts approach challenges relating to religious practices and personal laws.
Centre to File Its Response
According to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who is representing the Centre, the government would file its response within a week.
The Centre is at once a crucial place given that the case raises questions on whether changes in Muslim inheritance law should come through legislation rather than judicial intervention.
A Larger Debate Over Personal Law
The case is in the history of constitutional debates over the relationship between personal laws, religious freedom and fundamental rights.
The Supreme Court has previously dealt with questions involving Muslim personal law such as the 2017 judgment on instant triple talaq. But the current inheritance matter is a different one, and potentially more general because inheritance rules are closely tied to religious personal law and succession.
A much earlier constitutional debate has been regarding the 1951 decision of State of Bombay v. Narasu Appa Mali on whether personal laws can be tested against fundamental rights. The issue has still played a role in subsequent constitutional litigation.
What Happens Next?
What the Supreme Court will find out ultimately could have far more impact beyond the inheritance laws under pressure. It could help clarify the roles of the judiciary and legislature in a more equitable and just way to reform personal laws in the face of religious freedom and constitutional guarantees.
For now, however, the case is ongoing and the court has not ruled that the challenged Muslim inheritance provisions are unconstitutional. The next big moment will be the Centre's response and the final constitutional guidance emerging from the Sabarimala reference.
