A good friend shared a message about Prince of Arcot's message in response to Mr. Rizvi's petition to the SC. This something that I thought was ludicrous to begin with, seems to still be making its rounds. A few points on the issue from my observations.
The SC does not have adjudicatory powers over faith systems' canonical texts. It does over practice where its implications converge at issues of public morality. Or constitutional morality, as it is cool these days. So the petition is invalid.
The prince of Arcot, as far as things go in the democratic state, does not hold theocratic powers. Powers vested in him by faith, make him a nominal ruler/representative of god[sic]. In such case, he can stake claim to rule in favour of religious contentions. Here, he does not.
Even in a theocracy, a la the house of Saud, religious considerations aren't handled by the ruler. The body of clerics who are literates/educated in canonical texts; the ruler acts as a modus for action.
As for the claims that there exist no lines in the al-Qurʼān or the Ḥadīths, speaking of violence, it is but an ostrich. From the Shahada to Halal it is at best negative discrimination. At its worst, a clear positive a derogation. The arguments from both Shi-as and Sunni-s have both failed to accept a crux. It is a historical record speaking of butchery of the time gone by or if as a living text, a sanction to butcher. There can be no two ways about this, unless one loves sodomy.
And, speaking of the text, the text declares it is as a whole inviolable to the letter (not mere spirit). So, the question to the likes of Mr. Rizvi would be, if they think they or any court of secular law can change things in it. If they do, it is nothing but a breach of Shahada and Kufr in positing power beyond Allāh. While at it, with Abu Dawud's texts, Indian Muslims are Kaffirs themselves. The extent of this Hadith's authority/interpretation does vary, but the pith remains. That might be the reason why Ulema-e-Hind etc come up with fancy statements. link
I could reuse the frivolous, vexatious, and more but I'd say they fit the text under consideration. More than the flimsy petition in a court of law that is ipso facto, invalid as an authority, the text takes the cake.