Gender Justice and Indian Personal Laws : A Philosophical Analysis through Aristotle's Theory of Justice, Kant's Categorical Imperative and Bentham's Utilitarianism

India's personal law system, one of the most noteworthy artifacts of colonial rule, regulates marriage, divorce, maintenance, guardianship, adoption and succession based on the religion of the partners and not based on a single secular code. This system of Hindu, Muslim, Christian, and Parsi personal laws has been debated for several decades now, defended as a representation of religious freedom under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, and condemned as an infringement of equality principles under Articles 14 and 15. The current paper goes away from the standard constitutional perspective that dominates most of these discussions in order to discuss what contemporary views of legal theories hold on gender imbalances present in personal laws of Hindus, Muslims, Christians, and Parsis. Based on Sir Rupert Jackson's reconstruction of the Aristotle's just theory from 2023, Kant's categorical imperative, and utilitarianism of Bentham, the current paper shows that Aristotle's principle of proportions, Kant's principle of universalization, and Bentham’s utility come together in their condemnation of all rather discriminatory forms that could be found in current Indian personal laws, although may approach the resolution of the issue from different sides and have different opinions on how to reform them. The paper concludes that the difference between natural and conventional justice and Aristotle's theory of equity can constitute the most successful philosophical foundation for possible reforms performed according to principles of balance between achieving gender equality and preserving