SC flags need for Uniform Civil Code

The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday observed that the time may have come for a Uniform Civil Code while hearing a plea challenging provisions of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 as discriminatory to Muslim women. A Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and R Mahadevan said that while the petition raised “a very good case” on discrimination, reforms of this nature are better addressed by the legislature.

The court cautioned that striking down the 1937 law governing Muslim inheritance could create a legal vacuum as there is no statutory law currently regulating Muslim inheritance. “In our over-anxiety for reforms, we may end up depriving them,” the Chief Justice told senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioners. “If the Shariat Act goes away, will it not create an unnecessary void?”

Justice Bagchi said that although the plea raised serious issues of discrimination, it may be appropriate to leave the matter to Parliament, which has the mandate to enact a Uniform Civil Code under the Directive Principles of State Policy. The Chief Justice remarked that “the answer is Uniform Civil Code.”

Referring to broader personal law issues, Justice Bagchi noted that the principle of one wife for one man is not uniformly applied across communities, but that does not automatically empower the court to declare all bigamous marriages unconstitutional. Such matters, he said, require legislative action.

At the outset, Bhushan argued that the court could declare Muslim women entitled to equal inheritance rights and apply provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 if the 1937 Act is struck down.

The Bench also referred to the State of Bombay v. Narasu Appa Mali, which held that personal laws are not “laws in force” under Article 13 and therefore cannot be challenged for violating fundamental rights.

Bhushan cited the court’s 2017 ruling in Shayara Bano v. Union of India, arguing that Muslim women cannot be denied equal rights in matters of divorce and inheritance. The Bench allowed amendment of the petition filed by Poulomi Pavini Shukla and others and posted the matter for hearing after four weeks, calling it an “important issue.” It asked the petitioners to present further legal citations and possible alternatives, adding that judicial intervention may be appropriate if affected Muslim women seek relief from the 1937 law.