Does gender justice require judicial intervention in religious personal laws, or should reform be left to legislative processes? Discuss.

Gender justice in personal laws sits where Articles 14, 15 and 21 meet the freedom of religion under Article 25. With the Supreme Court again examining polygamy among Muslims, the question is not judiciary versus legislature, but how the two must work in sequence.

The case for judicial intervention

• Constitutional remedy: courts test personal law against fundamental rights. In Shayara Bano (2017) the Court struck down instant triple talaq as manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 [1].
• Access for the individual woman: Article 32 gives an affected woman direct relief without waiting for political consensus — the route taken by the present polygamy petition.
• Exposing legal anomaly: bigamy is punishable up to seven years under Section 82, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [2], while Section 2 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 [3] recognises polygamy — an inequality only judicial scrutiny has forced onto the agenda.

The case for legislative primacy

• Limits of adjudication: the minority in Shayara Bano held that uncodified personal law is not "law" under Article 13, showing courts can strike down but cannot codify [1].
• Comprehensive machinery: the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 supplied definitions, maintenance and custody provisions the judgment could not [4].
• Democratic legitimacy: reform touching faith needs consent, which is why the 22nd Law Commission invited public and religious organisations' views on a Uniform Civil Code [5].
• Administrative design: compulsory registration of marriages and fast-track maintenance require executive capacity, not declarations.

The two routes are therefore complementary: the judiciary sets the constitutional floor, the legislature builds the durable structure upon it. The way forward is gradual, consultative codification of personal laws on gender-just lines — mandatory marriage registration, secure maintenance and matrimonial-home rights — advancing Article 44 without unsettling constitutional pluralism.