Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, presiding over a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, said the UCC has nothing to do with religion. 

Why in News?

A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant issued a formal notice to the Union Government. The court was responding to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that argues current Shariat inheritance rules violate the fundamental rights of Muslim women by granting them smaller shares of property compared to men.

Key Highlights of the Judicial Observations

• Constitutional Ambition: The CJI clarified that Article 44 (UCC) is a goal set by the Constitution and should not be viewed through a religious lens.
• Discriminatory Inheritance: The petition highlights that under Shariat law, women are often entitled to only half the share of their male counterparts in intestate succession (when someone dies without a will).
• Testamentary Restrictions: The court noted that currently, a Muslim cannot bequeath more than one-third of their property via a will without the consent of other heirs, which limits autonomy even over self-acquired assets.
• Essential Religious Practice: Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan argued that inheritance is a civil matter and does not constitute an essential religious practice protected under Article 25.
• Geographical Inequality: The plea pointed out a new legal anomaly: since Uttarakhand implemented its own UCC in 2024, Muslim women there enjoy equal inheritance rights, while those in the rest of India do not, creating a constitutionally suspect geographical classification.

Objectives of the Petition

• Gender Equality: To ensure that Muslim women have equal property rights as guaranteed under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.
• Legal Uniformity: To explore whether the Indian Succession Act, 1925 can be applied to Muslims to fill the legal vacuum if discriminatory Shariat provisions are struck down.
• Judicial Reform: To catalyze a reformation within personal laws similar to the landmark Shayara Bano case, which invalidated instant triple talaq.

Challenges and Judicial Caution

• Judicial Overreach: The bench expressed caution, noting that the judiciary cannot easily re-legislate or create amendments, as these are primarily legislative tasks belonging to Parliament.
• Legal Vacuum: CJI Surya Kant raised concerns that striking down the 1937 Act without a replacement might leave Muslim women with no legal protection at all for a period.
• Need for Aggrieved Parties: The court directed the petitioners to bring "actual sufferers"—Muslim women directly affected by these laws—to the court as intervenors to ensure the case is not seen as an outside challenge to faith.

Way Forward

• The Union Government must now provide a clear stance on whether it intends to bring a national legislation to address these inheritance disparities.
•  To ensure a smooth transition toward a UCC, the Law Commission should engage in deep consultations with the community to incorporate the most liberal and non-discriminatory elements from various personal laws. 
• Simultaneously, legal awareness campaigns are necessary to help women understand their existing rights under special laws like the Special Marriage Act, which already provides a path toward uniform civil rights.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to examine Shariat inheritance laws marks a significant step in the evolution of India's personal law framework. By framing the UCC as a constitutional ambition rather than a religious imposition, the court has opened a door for a more objective debate on gender justice.

Source: Indian Express