In a holistic study (Chowdhury, 2021), for many centuries, the debate on the superiority of the Indian constitution against the country's religious morality, customs, practices, and traditions accompanying it has been a defining feature of post-independence jurisprudence. Co contrary to the personal laws of other major Muslim-majority nations, such as Pakistan and Bangladesh, India's laws lacks a standardized codification (Deb, 2019). As a result, the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board and its position on revising Muslim personal laws in India are the focus of this article.

The Supreme Court's precedent-setting rulings in favour of women's access to the Sabrimala temple and the abolition of criminal penalties for violations of Section 377 make it clear that constitutional morality takes precedence over religious morality. The question facing the Supreme Court and legislators more broadly is whether or not the practices that flagrantly violate the fundamental right to equality of millions of Muslim women under Muslim Personal Law, about their counterparts from other religious dominions, is any more tenable in the constitutional scheme of India.

This article takes a look at the position taken by the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board (All India Muslim Personal Law Board) on issues of discrimination based on genders, such as polygamy and the choice to enter puberty.

This paper aims to comprehensively cite and analysed such gender discriminatory practices sanctioned under personal law and suggest reformative measures to deal with the same, arguing that the problem of gender inequality afflicting various personal laws stems from a deep-seated patriarchal mind-set of society and agencies like the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board.