'UCC Is The Answer' : Supreme Court On Plea Challenging Shariat Inheritance Law As Discriminatory Against Muslim Women

The Supreme Court on Tuesday briefly heard a writ petition challenging Muslim personal law provisions as discriminatory against women.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice R Mahadevan, during the hearing, asked Advocate Prashant Bhushan if the Court can adjudicate the constitutionality of a personal law practice. Justice Bagchi referred to the 'Narasu Appa Mali' decision of the Bombay High Court which held that personal laws cannot be subjected to Constitutional tests.

The bench also asked if the Court struck down the Shariat inheritance law, would it not lead to a legal vacuum, as there is no statutory law governing Muslim inheritance. Bhushan replied that the provisions of the Indian Succession Act will apply in the vacuum. He further submitted that the Court can make a declaration that Muslim women are entitled to equal inheritance rights as men.

Responding to the Court's query whether the Court can interfere with a personal law, Bhushan relied on the Supreme Court's 2017 judgment in the Shayara Bano case, which struck down 'triple talaq' as an unconstitutional practice. "We cannot have a situation in the country now after the Shayara Bano judgment that Muslim women will not have same rights as Muslim men." He further argued that there was a statute, the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, which recognised such a discriminatory inheritance provision, and the Court can interfere with the statute to that extent.

Bhushan further argued that personal law relating to inheritance will not be protected under Article 25 of the Constitution, which guarantees religious freedom. Inheritance is a matter of civil right and cannot be claimed as an essential religious practice, he submitted. 

CJI however repeated the concern whether the Court's intervention will leave the Muslim women without the protection of any law. "In our over-anxiety for reforms, we may end up depriving them and they might end up getting less than what they are already getting. If the Shariat Act 1937 goes way, then what is the question? Will it not create an unnecessary void?" CJI Surya Kant asked.

Justice Bagchi, supplementing the CJI, observed whether it would not be defer to the wisdom of the legislative, which has the mandate to enact a Uniform Civil Code as per the Directive Principles of State Policy.

"The answer is Uniform Civil Code," CJI Kant said. Taking a cue from the CJI's comment, Justice Bagchi pointed out that the rule of 'one wife for one man' is not being uniformly applied to all communities. "But does that mean that the Court can declare all bigamous marriages as unconstitutional? So we have to defer to legislative power to bring the directive principles in effect." Justice Bagchi said. "It is best to defer it to legislative wisdom. This court has already recommended to the legislature to enact a Uniform Code," Justice Bagchi said.  

The bench also expressed that judicial intervention would be advisable in a petition filed by Muslim women themselves, who seek to wriggle out of the Shariat Act 1937. Bhushan then pointed out that some of the petitioners are Muslim women.

The bench then suggested to Bhushan to amend the petition to include suggestions as to what should be remedies in the event the Shariat inheritance provisions are struck down. On Bhushan agreeing to amend the petition, the Court adjourned the matter. 

Reliefs sought in the petition :

The petition has been filed by Advocate Poulomi Pavani Shukla along with an organisation Nyaya Naari Foundation represented by Aisha Jawaid.

The petition seeks several directions from the Supreme Court, including:

• A declaration that Section 2 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, insofar as it governs intestate succession and inheritance, is void under Articles 13, 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution to the extent that it discriminates against Muslim women by denying them equal shares in inheritance.
• A declaration that the rules on intestate succession under the Shariat Act are not essential religious practices protected by Article 25 and, after the enactment of the Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code, are subject to constitutional scrutiny under Part III of the Constitution.
• A declaration that the coexistence of the Uttarakhand UCC granting equal inheritance to Muslim women and the Shariat Act denying such equality elsewhere creates an unconstitutional geographical classification among women of the same faith, violating Articles 14 and 15.
• A direction that, until Parliament amends the law, Muslims across India should have uniform and gender-equal testamentary rights and that the one-third restriction on testamentary disposition should not operate to create unequal civil consequences between Muslims in Uttarakhand and those in the rest of India.
• A direction that Muslim women across India should have gender-equal inheritance rights, so that Muslim women outside Uttarakhand are not placed at a disadvantage compared to Muslim women in the State.
• A direction to the Union Government to amend the law of intestate succession, in exercise of powers under Articles 245–254 read with Entry 5 of List III of the Seventh Schedule, to ensure equal inheritance rights for Muslim women and equal testamentary rights for Muslims across India, consistent with constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity and the framework adopted in the Uttarakhand UCC.

The petition raised a constitutional challenge to provisions of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, arguing that the enactment of the Uniform Civil Code of Uttarakhand, 2024 has created unequal civil rights among Muslims based solely on geographical residence.

The petition argues that the Uttarakhand UCC has created two distinct regimes of civil rights within the Muslim community. It points out that a Muslim woman residing in Dehradun would inherit equally with her brothers under the Uttarakhand law, whereas a Muslim woman in Delhi or other States would continue to inherit half the share of a male sibling under the Shariat law.

It points out that equal inheritance rights have already been secured for Hindu daughters under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (as amended in 2005) and for Christian and Parsi women under the Indian Succession Act, 1925. With the Uttarakhand UCC also granting equal inheritance rights to Muslim women in that State, the petition claims that the only remaining anomaly lies in the continued application of the Shariat Act elsewhere in India.

The plea highlights that while a Muslim man in Uttarakhand can bequeath his entire estate to his daughter, a Muslim man in other States remains bound by the Shariat rule restricting testamentary bequests to one-third of the property.

The petitioners also referred to the similar matters pending in the Supreme Court - the case Sufiya PM v. Union of India, where an Ex-Muslim is seeking to be governed by the Indian Succession Act, and the matter Naushad K.K v. Union of India, where a practising Muslim seeks the option to be governed by the Indian Succession Act instead of the Shariat law.

Case:  POULOMI PAVINI SHUKLA Vs UNION OF INDIA | D No. 67256/2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order