India’s Supreme Court Strongly Urges Legislature to Enact Uniform Civil Code

The Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed strong support for the enactment of a Uniform Civil Code in India while hearing a petition challenging provisions of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937. Petitioners argued that certain provisions of the Act violate the rights of Muslim women, particularly in matters of succession.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice R Mahadevan emphasised the need for legislative intervention to address the complexities arising from personal laws.

“To declare personal laws void and create a vacuum is unwise. It is better to defer to the legislature, which can frame a Uniform Civil Code,” Justice Bagchi said. “For a Muslim man, divorce can be unilateral. Can we declare all bigamous relations under personal law as invalid? No. Legislative power is needed to define fundamental duties.”

CJI Kant agreed with Justice Bagchi, stating: “The answer, as correctly said, is the Uniform Civil Code.”

During the hearing, the Court questioned the petitioners on the implications of challenging the 1937 Act. The Bench noted that repealing the law without a substitute could create a legal vacuum. “You are challenging the 1937 Act, but then what will apply? What about the vacuum?” CJI Kant asked.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioners, argued that under Shariah law, women are entitled to only half of what men receive. He suggested that if the 1937 Act were struck down, the Indian Succession Act, which guarantees equal inheritance rights for men and women, could govern the field.

Justice Bagchi questioned this approach, noting that even without the 1937 Act, Muslim succession might still be governed by personal law under Article 372 of the Constitution. CJI Kant cautioned against hasty judicial intervention that could inadvertently reduce protections for Muslim women. “In our over-anxiety for reforms, we may end up depriving them or giving less than what they currently have,” he said.

Bhushan emphasised that inheritance is a civil right rather than an essential religious practice and therefore does not receive protection under Article 25. He argued that Muslim women should not be deprived of equal rights compared to men.

The Bench suggested that the petitioners consider amending their plea to propose legislative alternatives that could restore women’s rights without creating a legal void. “Why don’t you amend the plea and consider alternatives, so that more credence can be given? Ultimately, the aim is to ensure that women who are being deprived of their rights can have them restored,” CJI Kant said.

The Court’s remarks underline the continuing debate on the Uniform Civil Code in India and signal the judiciary’s preference for legislative action over abrupt judicial changes to personal laws.

For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.