Sarla Mudgal and Lily Thomas

In one line

A married Hindu who converts to Islam and takes a second wife commits bigamy, because his first marriage is not dissolved by his change of religion.

In the wording a student can write in an exam: in Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India the Supreme Court held that the second marriage of a Hindu husband after conversion to Islam, without his first marriage having been dissolved under law, is INVALID; the second marriage is void in terms of section 494 of the Indian Penal Code and the apostate husband is guilty of the offence under that section. In Lily Thomas v. Union of India a review of that judgment was dismissed: the Court affirmed that a Hindu husband who converts and marries again during the subsistence of the first marriage commits bigamy, since the first marriage CONTINUES and is not dissolved by his conversion; and it clarified that Sarla Mudgal had NOT directed the Government to enact a uniform civil code, article 44 being a Directive Principle, and that the judgment DECLARED THE LAW AS IT ALREADY STOOD rather than making new law with retrospective effect.

The statutory frame

Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 makes it a condition of a Hindu marriage that NEITHER PARTY HAS A SPOUSE LIVING at the time of the marriage.

Section 11 makes a marriage solemnised after the commencement of the Act NULL AND VOID if it contravenes clause (i), (iv) or (v) of section 5, and it may be so declared on a petition by either party against the other.

Section 17 provides that any marriage between two Hindus solemnised after the commencement of the Act IS VOID if at the date of the marriage either party had a husband or wife living, and that the provisions of sections 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code shall apply accordingly.

Section 82(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, which replaced section 494 on 1 July 2024, punishes whoever, HAVING A HUSBAND OR WIFE LIVING, marries in any case in which such marriage is VOID BY REASON OF ITS TAKING PLACE DURING THE LIFE of such husband or wife, with imprisonment up to seven years and fine. The exception excludes a person whose marriage has been declared void by a competent court, and a person whose spouse has been continually absent for seven years and not heard of as alive, provided the fact is disclosed before the subsequent marriage. Section 82(2) raises the maximum to ten years where the former marriage was CONCEALED from the person with whom the subsequent marriage is contracted.

Read those together and the reasoning writes itself. The offence requires (a) a subsisting marriage and (b) a second marriage void BY REASON of the first. The whole question is whether conversion dissolves the first marriage. If it does not, both limbs are satisfied.