The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur has dismissed a petition filed by two siblings who alleged they were subjected to a social boycott following an inter-sect marriage within their family. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, presiding over the matter, ruled that the petitioners failed to provide concrete evidence that any such boycott had been enforced or that their fundamental rights had been infringed. The court emphasized that while religious opinions may be issued, they hold no legal standing within the constitutional framework of the country and cannot be used to exert coercive control over individuals.

The litigation originated from a complaint filed by Yusuf Khan and his sister, Abeda Khatun, residents of Balod. The siblings contended that the local mosque committee, the Intezamiya Committee of Jama Masjid, had issued a fatwa on August 23, 2019, shortly after the daughter of petitioner No. 2 married a man from the Shia Muslim community. The petitioners, who identify as members of the Sunni Muslim community, alleged that the religious body declared their entire family to be outside the faith and directed the local community to socially ostracize them.

Central to the siblings' argument was the assertion that this religious decree was not merely a matter of faith but an act of personal retaliation. Yusuf Khan claimed that he had previously filed formal complaints with the Chhattisgarh State Waqf Board regarding alleged financial irregularities and embezzlement by the committee members. These complaints had prompted the Board to dissolve the existing committee, appoint an administrator, and launch an investigation into the organization’s affairs. The petitioners argued that the timing of the fatwa, which followed these complaints, proved it was a tool for harassment designed to force the withdrawal of the corruption allegations.

Dispute Over Religious Authority and Personal Allegations

The petitioners sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, arguing that the committee’s actions severely violated their right to life and personal liberty, specifically the right to live with dignity. Their counsel argued that the committee had no legal authority to intervene in a private marriage or to dictate the religious standing of community members. They urged the court to quash the fatwa and direct the respondents to pay compensation for the social and psychological trauma caused by the alleged exclusion.

However, the respondents—including the committee and several of its former members—vehemently denied these allegations. Their legal representatives contended that the document in question did not identify the petitioners, nor did it contain any explicit instructions for a social boycott. Instead, they argued that the communication was merely a response to a general religious inquiry regarding the validity of inter-sect marriages. The respondents maintained that the entire controversy was a fabrication fueled by the ongoing dispute over the management and financial administration of the local mosque.

Police Investigation Finds No Evidence of Ostracism

The state government, represented by its counsel, bolstered the defense by presenting the findings of a local police inquiry. According to a report submitted to the Superintendent of Police in Balod on January 15, 2020, investigators conducted interviews with the petitioners and various members of the local community. The report concluded that there was no evidence that a fatwa had been issued to target the siblings, nor were there any verifiable signs that a social boycott was in effect.

The inquiry further highlighted that while a long-standing personal and administrative dispute existed between the petitioners and the committee members, the situation did not reach the threshold of criminal intimidation or cognizable offenses. Consequently, the state argued that the petition lacked merit and was essentially an attempt to use the judicial system to resolve local management conflicts, rather than an urgent matter of constitutional rights.

Constitutional Limits of Non-Judicial Verdicts

In arriving at its decision, the High Court relied heavily on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in the case of Vishwa Lochan Madan v. Union of India . In that judgment, the apex court clarified the standing of religious decrees in the Indian legal system. Justice Prasad noted that the legal position regarding such opinions is clear: "A fatwa is an opinion, only an expert is expected to give. It is not a decree, nor binding on the court or the State or the individual."

The court elaborated that while religious bodies may provide guidance to those who seek it, they cannot operate outside the law or attempt to enforce their views through social or psychological pressure. The ruling reiterated, "The fatwa has no legal status in our constitutional scheme. Notwithstanding that, it is an admitted position that fatwas have been issued and are being issued."

Ultimately, the High Court determined that the petitioners had not substantiated their claims with sufficient evidence. While the court acknowledged the potential for harm when individuals are subjected to social exclusion, it emphasized that the burden of proof rests on the petitioner to demonstrate that a specific, enforceable action resulted in an infringement of their rights. Without such proof, the judiciary cannot intervene based solely on allegations of a religious opinion that the defendants deny having enforced.

The court concluded that the petitioners had failed to establish the existence of an enforceable boycott that would justify judicial intervention. By dismissing the writ petition, the court effectively brought the current proceedings to a close, though it clarified that the petitioners remain at liberty to pursue any alternative legal remedies if they possess further evidence or choose to address the underlying disputes through appropriate civil or criminal forums. For now, the ruling serves as a restatement of the principle that religious opinions cannot override the legal rights of citizens or dictate the social standing of individuals within a constitutional democracy.