Court caseAIR 1952 Bom 84

Personal laws of Hindus and Muslims, as such, are not "laws in force" within Article 13(1); the expression "custom or usage" in Article 13(3)(a) does not include personal law. A State may legislate for the social reform of one community at a time without offending Article 14 or 15.

The Bombay Prevention of Hindu Bigamous Marriages Act 1946 made a bigamous marriage contracted by a Hindu void and punishable. Accused Hindus prosecuted under it contended that the Act discriminated against Hindus (Muslims could lawfully marry four wives), offended their freedom of religion, and was therefore void under Article 13. The question whether personal law itself is "law" tested by Part III was argued, because if Muslim personal law permitting polygamy were "law in force" it too would have to satisfy Article 14 and 15.

The High Court upheld the Act. Chagla CJ held that a legislature may carry out social reform by stages and for one community at a time; polygamy is not an essential part of the Hindu religion and the State may regulate it under Article 25(2). On Article 13, both judges held that "personal law" is not included in "law in force": Article 13(3)(a) lists custom and usage but not personal law, Article 44 presupposes that personal laws will continue until a uniform code is made, and the framers used "personal law" expressly elsewhere (Entry 5, List III). Gajendragadkar J added that personal laws rest on scriptural authority, not on legislative or customary origin, and so stand outside Article 13; a custom, in contrast, is "law" and must conform to Part III.