Suraj Singh (University of Study and Research in Law) has posted Polygamy in India – With Special Reference to the Bulkiest Constitution in the World. The abstract follows.
The research work analyzes the issue of Polygamy with reference to the bulkiest constitution in the world. Most of the debaters argue that the Indian polygamy law only prohibits polygamy among one religious group. Thus, current Indian law poses a constitutional paradox because permitting polygamy among Muslim men but prohibiting it among Hindus under the freedom of religion provisions violates the equal protection provisions of the Indian Constitution. The author takes a departure from this standpoint and argues that there are several reasons why Polygamy was not made punishable under the muslim personal law. The reasons are umpteen, i.e., historical reasons, political reasons, etc. which are further elucidated in the report. Relevant constitutional provisions and judicial pronouncements are being articulated and discussed with reference to the issue of Polygamy.Hence, the legislation in India, prohibiting polygamy among Hindus yet allowing polygamy among Muslims, is not unconstitutional and it doesn’t violate the provisions of Articles 13, 14 and 15 of the Indian Constitution.
When Employment Division v. Smith was decided, it had committed opponents and supporters. Opponents claimed that it represented the end of free exercise; supporters argued that at long last, the Court adopted an appropriately equal, predictable, and univocal principle of free exercise which limited the scope of its political interventions. There was disagreement about the wisdom of Smith (including in Congress, which reacted negatively to Smith with some statutes), but few doubted that Smith was a very big deal for constitutional religious liberty.
CLR Forum readers will know that Smith carved out various exceptions to the rule that neutral laws of general application are constitutional. The first exception dealt with the idea of hybrid rights. The idea was that a less than independently viable free exercise claim, when coupled with another constitutional right of uncertain strength, would become viable. Lower courts have adopted various interpretations of this exception: some have treated it as non-binding dicta, while others have tried to operationalize it in various ways. The second exception has proved to be far more important: where the law at issue is not truly a law of general application — where a system of individualized assessments with respect to exemption from the law has been adopted — then the law is again subject to strict scrutiny. I’ve looked into the question of how much, and how often, lower courts are using this exception (and I also inquired a bit about the extent to which litigants are using it). It turns out…a whole lot. Indeed, the latest example of the application of the individual assessment exception appears in a case reported by my colleague, Mark, just below, and just decided in the Sixth Circuit, where Judge Sutton held that a student who was dismissed from a counseling program because she refused on religious grounds to counsel homosexual couples and non-married couples could proceed with her claim. The court held that the school’s “no referral to other counselors” policy was not one of general application, because referrals for secular reasons had been permitted. For more on the case, see Mark’s item below. You might wonder just how powerful the individualized assessment exception is…you will have to wait for my book to see just how much! For the third exception…follow the jump!