‘Uniform Civil Code is the answer’: SC on plea challenging provisions of Muslim personal law

The Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed its support for the Uniform Civil Code in the country while hearing a petition challenging provisions of Muslim personal law that allegedly discriminate against women, Live Law reported.

The petition challenges the 1937 Muslim Personal Law Shariat Application Act, alleging that its provisions discriminate against women on matters such as succession.

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymala Bagchi and R Mahadevan said that declaring personal laws void would create a legislative vacuum, Bar and Bench reported.

“…It is best to defer it to legislative wisdom so that the legislature brings about a law on Uniform Civil Code,” Bagchi said. “This court has already recommended Uniform Civil Code.”

Kant concurred with Bagchi’s view and said: “The answer, as correctly said, is the Uniform Civil Code.”

The Uniform Civil Code refers to a common set of laws governing marriage, divorce, succession and adoption for all citizens. Currently, such personal affairs of different religious and tribal groups are based on community-specific laws, largely derived from religious scripture.

During the hearing on Tuesday, lawyer Prashant Bhushan argued that if provisions of the Muslim Personal Law Shariat Application Act are struck down, the Indian Succession Act would apply in the vacuum, Live Law reported.

Bagchi questioned Bhushan’s contention. “If the 1937 Act is not there, will Muslim succession not be governed by personal law as under Article 372?” he asked, according to Bar and Bench.

Article 372 of the Constitution allows laws that existed before January 26, 1950, to remain in force until they are altered or repealed by a legislature.

Bhushan said that the court could issue a declaration saying that Muslim women were entitled to equal inheritance rights as men.

“We cannot have a situation in the country now after the Shayara Bano judgement [which declared triple talaq unconstitutional] that Muslim women will not have same rights as Muslim men,” Live Law quoted him as having told the court.

The lawyer contended that personal laws on inheritance would not be protected under Article 25 of the Constitution, which pertains to the freedom of religion, Bar and Bench reported. “Inheritance is a civil right and it is not an essential religious practice,” he argued.

The court said that judicial intervention would be advisable in a plea filed by Muslim women themselves.

To this, Bhushan pointed out that some of the petitioners are Muslim women, Live Law reported.

The bench then asked Bhushan to amend the petition to include suggestions on which laws should prevail if Shariat inheritance provisions are struck down.

Article 44 of the Constitution says that the state should “endeavour to secure for the citizens a Uniform Civil Code throughout the territory of India”. However, the provision is part of Directive Principles of State Policy and is thus not legally binding.

Introducing a common personal law has long been on the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party’s agenda and several states governed by the Hindutva party have been taking steps towards implementing it.

In January 2025, BJP-ruled Uttarakhand became the first state to implement the Uniform Civil Code after independence. A common civil code has been in place in Goa since the Portuguese Civil Code was adopted in 1867.

In its campaign for the Uniform Civil Code in Uttarakhand, the BJP had mainly targeted Muslim personal law, arguing that it discriminated against women as it allows Muslim men to practice polygamy, inherit a greater share of property, initiate divorce and deny alimony.

Legal experts have said that Uttarakhand’s Uniform Civil Code is drawn primarily from Hindu personal law and could lead to the erasure of the personal law practices of minority communities.