Personal laws prevail

The "laws in force” in Article 13 of the constitution of India do not include personal laws, as categorically stated in an illuminating Bombay High Court judgment of Chief Justice Mahommedali Currim Chagla and Justice Pralhad Balacharya Gajendragadkar and reported in AIR 1953 Bombay 84. This was pointed out by senior jurist Fali Nariman when Parsiana requested his views on an article that had appeared in The Economic Times of April 7, 2015 wherein a correspondent had stated, while reporting on a recent judgment, "the court’s ruling that the civil law of the land would prevail over any personal law.”
Nariman also noted that the same point has been dealt with in AIR 1980 SC 707 where the view taken was: "It would be convenient, at the outset, to deal with the view expressed by the High Court that the strict rule enjoined by the Smriti (a specific body of Hindu religious texts based on ‘that which is remembered’) writers as a result of which Sudras (untouchables) were considered to be incapable of entering the order of yati or sanyasi (renouncement of the world, asceticism), has ceased to be valid because of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the constitution. In our opinion, the learned judge failed to appreciate that Part III of the constitution does not touch upon the personal laws of parties. In applying the personal laws of parties, he could not introduce his own concepts of modern times but should have enforced the law as derived from recognized and authoritative sources of Hindu law, i.e., Smritis and commentaries referred to, as interpreted in the judgments of various High Courts, except where such law is altered by any usage or custom or is modified or abrogated by statute.”
This would denote that personal laws prevail unless they are modified or removed by legislation, or are amended by usage or custom. Judges cannot introduce their "new concepts of modern times” but must enforce laws based on recognized and authoritative sources.