The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a brother and sister alleging that a Fatwa issued by a local mosque committee had resulted in their social boycott following a marriage between members of the Sunni and Shia Muslim communities. The Court held that a Fatwa has no binding legal force and cannot be enforced through coercive methods.
Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad observed that the petitioners had failed to produce sufficient material establishing that the alleged Fatwa had actually been enforced against them or that it had resulted in a violation of their fundamental rights.
Background
The petition was filed by Yusuf Khan and his sister, who challenged an alleged Fatwa dated August 23, 2019, purportedly issued by members of the Intezamiya Committee of Jama Masjid, Balod.
The dispute arose after the marriage of the petitioner's sister's daughter with a person belonging to the Shia Muslim community, while the petitioners belonged to the Sunni community. They alleged that the Fatwa declared them and their family members excluded from the Muslim community and directed others to maintain social distance from them.
The petitioners further claimed that the action was retaliation against Yusuf Khan for raising complaints regarding alleged financial irregularities in the mosque committee. They approached the High Court seeking quashing of the Fatwa and compensation for the alleged harassment and humiliation.
The State informed the Court that an inquiry conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Balod, had found no evidence of a Fatwa directing the petitioners' social boycott. The inquiry report dated January 15, 2020, also recorded that no such boycott was prevailing in society.
The private respondents denied issuing any direction against the petitioners. They maintained that the Fatwa merely addressed a religious query concerning a marriage between a Sunni and a Shia Muslim and did not specifically target the petitioners.
The High Court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Vishwa Lochan Madan v. Union of India (2014), which clarified the legal status of Fatwas.
The Supreme Court had observed:
"A fatwa is an opinion, only an expert is expected to give. It is not a decree, nor binding on the court or the State or the individual. It is not sanctioned under our constitutional scheme."
The Supreme Court had also made it clear that:
"Further, such an adjudication or fatwa does not have a force of law and, therefore, cannot be enforced by any process using coercive method. Any person trying to enforce that by any method shall be illegal and has to be dealt with in accordance with law."
Applying these principles, Justice Prasad noted that the private respondents had disputed the petitioners' interpretation of the alleged Fatwa and denied directing any social boycott. The police inquiry report also did not support the allegation.
The Court found no cogent material establishing that the alleged Fatwa had been enforced or that the petitioners' fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution had been infringed.
Finding no sufficient grounds for granting the reliefs sought, the Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the writ petition. However, it granted the petitioners liberty to pursue any other remedy available to them in accordance with law.
Case Details
Case Title: Yusuf Khan & Another v. Union of India & Others
Case Number: WPC No. 1757 of 2021
Judge: Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Decision Date: 03 November 2026
