<h3>Overview</h3> <p>On <strong>16 April 2026</strong>, a five‑judge bench of the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Supreme Court — India’s apex judicial body that interprets the Constitution and settles disputes on matters of law (GS2: Polity)">Supreme Court</span> headed by <span class="key-term" data-definition="Chief Justice of India — The senior-most judge who presides over the Supreme Court and administers the Indian judiciary (GS2: Polity)">Chief Justice of India Surya Kant</span> issued a notice to the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Union government — The central authority of India responsible for implementing statutes and policies (GS2: Polity)">Union government</span>. The notice was in response to a petition filed by <strong>Poulomi Pavini Shukla</strong>, represented by senior lawyers <strong>Prashant Bhushan</strong> and <strong>Nihal Ahmed</strong>, challenging the gender‑neutrality of the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 — Statute that codifies Muslim inheritance and succession rules based on Sharia, enacted in 1937 (GS2: Polity)">Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937</span> (hereafter “Shariat Act”). The petition argues that the provisions on inheritance and testamentary succession are discriminatory towards women and are not "<span class="key-term" data-definition="essential religious practices — Core religious rites that the Constitution protects under the freedom of religion clause; a practice must be essential to claim protection (GS2: Polity)">essential religious practices</span>".</p> <h3>Key Developments</h3> <ul> <li>The bench has <strong>issued notice</strong> to the Union government, signalling that the matter will be heard on merits.</li> <li>The petition seeks a declaration that the Shariat Act’s inheritance rules are unconstitutional under Articles 14 (equality) and 25 (freedom of religion).</li> <li>Advocates argue that the Act’s preference for male heirs violates the principle of gender equality enshrined in the Constitution.</li> <li>The case revives a long‑standing debate on the intersection of personal law, gender justice, and constitutional morality.</li> </ul> <h3>Important Facts</h3> <ul> <li>The <span class="key-term" data-definition="Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 — Statute that codifies Muslim inheritance and succession rules based on Sharia, enacted in 1937 (GS2: Polity)">Shariat Act</span> currently mandates that a son inherits twice the share of a daughter, and that a widow’s share is limited to one‑quarter of the estate.</li> <li>Previous Supreme Court judgments (e.g., <em>Shah Bano* case, 1985) have upheld the need to balance personal law with constitutional guarantees, but the Shariat Act remains largely untouched.</li> <li>The petition was filed under Article 32, which allows individuals to approach the Supreme Court directly for enforcement of fundamental rights.</li> <li>Both petitioners a</li> </ul>