The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that the introduction of a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) may be the most effective way to address conflicts arising from the operation of different personal laws. The court was hearing a petition alleging that certain provisions of Muslim personal law infringe the rights of women.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice R Mahadevan indicated that the question of reforming personal laws is better addressed through legislation rather than judicial intervention. Justice Bagchi remarked that striking down personal law provisions without an alternative statutory framework could create legal uncertainty. According to him, a comprehensive law enacted by Parliament would be better suited to resolve such issues.
“Declaring personal laws void would leave a vacuum. It would be more appropriate for the legislature to step in and enact a Uniform Civil Code,” he said, noting that the court had earlier also recommended the idea. Referring to aspects of Muslim personal law, he observed that questions concerning practices such as unilateral divorce or bigamy involve complex legal consequences that cannot be easily invalidated through judicial orders.
The Chief Justice concurred with the view, stating that a uniform code could provide a consistent solution.
During the hearing, the Bench also questioned the petitioners regarding their challenge to the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, which they claim discriminates against Muslim women, particularly in matters of succession. The court pointed out that if the 1937 law were struck down, it could leave a legal void regarding the applicable rules of succession.
“If the 1937 Act is set aside, what will govern the field? What fills that vacuum?” the CJI asked.
Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the Sharia-based framework provides women with only half the inheritance share of men. He suggested that if the 1937 Act were invalidated, the Indian Succession Act could apply instead, which grants equal inheritance rights to men and women.
However, Justice Bagchi questioned whether, in the absence of the statute, Muslim succession would continue to be governed by uncodified personal law under Article 372 of the Constitution, which preserves pre-existing laws.
The Chief Justice also cautioned against judicial steps that could inadvertently reduce existing entitlements available to Muslim women.
“In our eagerness to bring reforms, we must be careful that women are not left with fewer protections than they currently have. If the 1937 Act goes, what replaces it is the real question,” he said.
Bhushan maintained that inheritance is a matter of civil rights and cannot be considered an essential religious practice protected under Article 25 of the Constitution. He further argued that Muslim women should enjoy the same inheritance rights as Muslim men.
The Bench, however, indicated that the matter may require legislative action and suggested that the petitioners consider revising their plea to propose workable alternatives.
“What ultimately matters is that if a section of Indian women is being denied their rights, those rights must be restored. You may consider amending your petition and placing alternative solutions before the court,” the Chief Justice said.
