State of Bombay vs Narasu Appa Mali - Case Analysis

Introduction of State of Bombay vs Narasu Appa Mali

The case of State of Bombay vs Narasu Appa Mali (1952) challenged the constitutional validity of the Bombay Prevention of Hindu Bigamous Marriage Act, 1946. The Petitioners in this case contended that the Act violated Article 14, Article 15 and Article 25 of Constitution by restricting the practice of polygamy among Hindus and allowing it for Muslims. The High Court of Bombay had to decide whether this restriction infringed upon fundamental rights or not.

📚 Exclusive Free Judiciary Notes For Law Aspirants

Subjects	PDF Link
Download the Free Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita PDF Created by legal experts	Download Link
Grab the Free Law of Contract PDF used by Judiciary Aspirants	Download Link
Get your hands on the most trusted Free Law of Torts PDF	Download Link
Crack concepts with this Free Jurisprudence PDF crafted by top mentors	Download Link

Historical Context and Facts of State of Bombay vs Narasu Appa Mali

The case at hand revolves around the constitutional validity of the Bombay Prevention of Hindu Bigamous Marriage Act, 1946. It was asserted that the Act violated Part III of the Indian Constitution namely, Article 14, Article 15 and Article 25.

The Bombay Prevention of Hindu Bigamous Marriage Act, 1946 was introduced to prevent bigamy among Hindus whereas Muslim personal laws permitted men to marry up to four wives. It was contended that this Act violated Article 25 as Hindu marriage was claimed to be a sacramental union for the procreation of a male heir which was a religious practice.

The Petitioners also invoked Article 14 and Article 15 and argued that while Muslims could practise polygamy and Hindus were being discriminated against based on religion. The Petitioners in this case also referred to Article 44 of the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP).

Issue addressed in State of Bombay vs Narasu Appa Mali

The main question which was addressed in this case was whether the act challenged was in contravention of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14, Article 15 and Article 25 of the Constitution?

Article 14 of the Indian Constitution

Article 14 guarantees that the State shall not deny to any person equality before law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.

Article 15 of the Indian Constitution

It states that -

)1) The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. 

(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, be subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to - 

(a) access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment

(b) the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public. 

(3) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children. 

(4) Nothing in this article or in clause (2) of article 29 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. 

(5) Nothing in this article or in sub-clause (g) of clause (1) of article 19 shall prevent the State from making any special provision, by law, for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes in so far as such special provisions relate to their admission to educational institutions including private educational institutions, whether aided or unaided by the State, other than the minority educational institutions referred to in clause (1) of article 30.

Article 25 of the Indian Constitution

Article 25 explicitly provides for freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion, subject to considerations of public order, morality, and health, as well as other provisions in the Constitution. Article 25 also states that no existing laws will be affected by this right and the State retains the authority to:

1. Regulate or restrict any economic, financial, political, or other secular activity related to religious practices.
2. Implement laws promoting social welfare and reform, or open Hindu religious institutions to all Hindus, regardless of caste or section.

Article 44 of the Indian Constitution

The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.

Judgment and Impact of State of Bombay vs Narasu Appa Mali

The High Court of Bombay rejected the claim that the restriction on bigamy violated the freedom to practice religion. It held that religious practices, if they conflict with public order, morality or public policy then it must yield to the greater welfare of the people. The Court noted that the state is empowered under Article 25(2)(b) to enact reforms for social welfare which include regulating practices associated with religion.

The Bombay High Court also ruled that the Act did not infringe the principles of equality as reasonable restrictions could be imposed for the purpose of social reform. It highlighted that Hindu law and Muslim law have different historical and religious origins and cannot be unified under a Uniform Civil Code until broader social consensus-ad-idem is reached.

The Petitioners in this case contended that personal laws should be considered as “laws” under Article 13(3) and be subject to the fundamental rights. The Court dismissed this contention of the Petitioners and stated that the personal laws being based on religious customs and traditions do not fall within the purview of Article 13(3) and are not classified as “laws in force.”

Thus, the High Court of Bombay held that the Bombay Prevention of Hindu Bigamous Marriage Act, 1946 was a social reform which aimed at curbing the practice of bigamy among Hindus.

Conclusion

The Bombay High Court in this case upheld the constitutional validity of the Bombay Prevention of Hindu Bigamous Marriage Act, 1946 and held that it was a legitimate social reform that did not violate Article 14, Article 15 and Article 25.