[1.

] THE DISMISSAL OF THE PIL BY THE HIGH COURT WAS RIGHT

The PIL filed by the petitioner and Nasrin under Art. 226 of the Indian Constitution is not
maintainable and was rightly dismissed by the Hon‟ble High Court of Dhruvasthan

Nasrin, the petitioner along with SCF does not belong to the disadvantaged section of the population
as she was educated and a working professional. The respondent being a Muslim is permitted by his
personal laws to have up to four wives, hence he cannot be punished under §494 of the IPC. In the
instant PIL there is no violation of Right to life as personal laws does not come within the ambit of
Part III of the Constitution. The court cannot usurp the functions assigned to the legislature under
the constitution and it cannot indirectly require the legislature to pass a new law. Therefore the PIL
was dismissed by the High Court on the right grounds.

POLYGAMY DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PARAMETERS EXPRESSED IN ART. 25 OF THE INDIAN
CONSTITUTION

In order to violate Art. 25 of the Constitution, it is necessary that it violates public order, morality or
health or it infringes the other provisions of Part III of the constitution. The state cannot regulate
economic, financial, political, or other secular activity which may be associated with religious activity.
Furthermore, religious freedom is not subject to law providing for social reform. Parties have chosen
to marry as per the customary personal law and personal law governs any person who chooses to
submit himself to such law until the Uniform Civil Code comes into existence. Lastly, personal laws
fall outside the ambit of the meaning of “law in force” under Art. 13 and thus the question of it
violating the parameters expressed in Art. 25 does not arise