BREAKING | '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. 

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