Supreme Court Backs Uniform Civil Code During Hearing on Muslim Personal Law Challenge

The Supreme Court, while hearing a plea against the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, openly said that a Uniform Civil Code may be the real answer to concerns about unequal treatment of Muslim women, especially in matters such as inheritance and other civil rights.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice R Mahadevan made it clear that the issue is too wide and sensitive to be settled by striking down personal law provisions without a clear legal replacement. The judges said such reform should come through Parliament.

During the hearing, 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.”

The Court appeared concerned that removing the 1937 law without an alternative framework could create serious uncertainty. The judges repeatedly pointed to the danger of a legal vacuum, especially in family and succession matters, where rights and obligations are already shaped by long-standing personal law systems.

Chief Justice Surya Kant also supported the broader idea of a common civil law. “The answer, as correctly said, is the Uniform Civil Code,” the CJI observed, signalling the Court’s agreement that piecemeal judicial intervention may not solve the larger structural issue.

The petitioners, represented by Advocate Prashant Bhushan, argued that the present position under Muslim personal law treats women unfairly. He submitted that in matters of succession, women receive only half of what men receive, and such inequality cannot continue in a constitutional democracy.

Bhushan further argued that if the 1937 Act is declared unconstitutional, the Indian Succession Act should apply. According to him, inheritance is a civil right and not an essential religious practice. He said, “Inheritance is a civil rights and it is not an essential religious practice. This does not have Article 25 protection.”

The Bench, however, questioned whether such a transition would happen automatically. Justice Bagchi pointed out that even without the 1937 Act, Muslim succession may still continue under personal law through Article 372, raising doubts over whether the petitioners’ proposed solution was legally workable.

The Chief Justice also warned against rushed reform. “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,” he said.

In the end, the Court indicated that legislative action remains the better route and advised the petitioners to rethink and amend their plea. The Bench said the focus should remain on restoring rights to women, but in a way that does not create deeper legal uncertainty.