Lily Thomas v Union of India

Facts

By petitions including a review of Sarla Mudgal v Union of India, the Court was asked to reconsider the ruling that a Hindu husband who converts to Islam and remarries during the subsistence of his first marriage commits bigamy under Section 494 IPC. Sushmita Ghosh's case illustrated the abuse: her husband G.C. Ghosh announced conversion to Islam to take a second wife, yet official documents (birth certificate, electoral roll, visa application) continued to record him as a Hindu named Gyan Chand Ghosh. The petitioners contended the earlier judgment violated fundamental rights under Articles 20(1), 21, 25 and 26 and sought its review.

Issues

• Whether the Court should review its decision in Sarla Mudgal v Union of India under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC / Article 137 of the Constitution.
• What constitutes an 'error apparent on the face of the record' sufficient to justify review.
• Whether conversion to Islam dissolves a Hindu marriage and exempts the convert from prosecution for bigamy under Section 494 IPC.

Arguments

The petitioners argued that the conversion was feigned and that, in any event, the Sarla Mudgal judgment created retrospective criminal liability and infringed the freedom of religion under Articles 25 and 26, warranting review. The Union of India contended that Section 494 IPC applies to all persons, that mere conversion does not dissolve a subsisting marriage, and that no error apparent on the face of the record existed to attract review jurisdiction under Order 47 CPC or Article 137.

Held

The Court dismissed the review petition. It held that the power of review can be exercised only where there is an error apparent on the face of the record, and that a review is not an appeal in disguise enabling rehearing of the matter on merits. The mere possibility of two views, or that a different conclusion might be reached, does not amount to such an error and is no ground for review. On the merits the Court reaffirmed that mere conversion to Islam does not dissolve a Hindu marriage, which subsists until dissolved by a decree, so that a second marriage during its subsistence is void and attracts Section 494 IPC. It clarified that Sarla Mudgal had not laid down any new law or issued binding directions on a Uniform Civil Code and so created no retrospective offence or violation of fundamental rights.

Ratio decidendi

The review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and Article 137 is confined to correcting an error apparent on the face of the record—a glaring, self-evident mistake that needs no elaborate argument to detect; it cannot be invoked merely because the petitioner urges a different or arguably better view of the law or facts.

Significance

A leading authority on the narrow scope of review jurisdiction, frequently cited for the proposition that the possibility of two views is not a ground for review and that review is not a rehearing on merits. It also remains a landmark on conversion-based bigamy, affirming and explaining Sarla Mudgal v Union of India.

Related