Today, On 10th March, The Supreme Court came out in open support of a Uniform Civil Code while hearing a plea that challenges provisions of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937. The answer, as said, is the Uniform Civil Code.
The Supreme Court urged the legislature to consider enacting a Uniform Civil Code while hearing a petition that challenges alleged violations of women’s rights under Muslim personal law.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice R Mahadevan asked Parliament to address the issues that arise from having different personal laws.
Justice Bagchi said,
“To declare personal laws void and create a vacuum … it is best to defer it to legislative wisdom so that the legislature brings about a law on uniform civil code. This court has already recommended uniform civil code. See, for a Muslim man, he can divorce unilaterally, by any procedure you follow. Can we declare all bigamous relations founded on personal law as invalid? No. So we have to defer to legislative power to bring fundamental duties, in effect,”
Also Read: Uttarakhand’s Uniform Civil Code | Only One Live-In Relationship Registered in 10 Days
CJI Kant concurred with Justice Bagchi’s remarks,
“The answer, as correctly said, is the Uniform Civil Code.”
During the hearing, the Court also probed the petitioners on their challenge to the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937.
The petitioners contend that certain provisions of the Act discriminate against Muslim women, particularly in succession matters.
The Court noted that striking down the 1937 Act could create a legal vacuum.
The CJI asked,
“You are challenging 1937 Act, then what will apply? What about the vacuum?,”
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioners, argued that under Shariah law women receive half the share of men, and said that if the 1937 Act were invalidated, the Indian Succession Act which treats men and women equally in succession would take effect.
Justice Bagchi questioned that position, asking,
“If the 1937 Act is not there, will Muslim succession not be governed by personal law as under Article 372?”
CJI Kant cautioned against rushed judicial steps that might unintentionally harm the interests of Muslim women.
He observed,
“In our overanxiety of reforms, we may end up depriving them (Muslim women) or getting less than what they are already getting. If it goes away (the 1937 Act), then what, is the question,”
Bhushan reiterated that inheritance is a civil right, not an essential religious practice, and therefore not protected under Article 25, arguing that Muslim women should have the same succession rights as Muslim men.
The Court, however, indicated that a legislative solution would be preferable and suggested the petitioners consider amending their petition.
CJI Kant said,
“Why don’t you amend the plea and think of some alternatives and so that more credence can be given? The question is, eventually, what we want to happen is (if there is) a part of Indian women (who) are being deprived of their rights, the idea is to restore those rights,”
The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) refers to a proposal in India to create one common set of personal laws that would apply to all citizens, regardless of religion.