In a significant hearing touching upon the intersection of personal laws, gender equality, and constitutional principles, the Supreme Court of India observed that the issue of alleged discrimination against Muslim women in inheritance under Shariat law raises serious concerns but may ultimately require legislative intervention through a Uniform Civil Code (UCC).
The remarks came while a bench comprising Surya Kant, Joymalya Bagchi, and R. Mahadevan heard a writ petition challenging provisions of Muslim personal law governing inheritance as discriminatory against women.
The petition before the Court challenges aspects of inheritance governed by the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, arguing that the current framework allows male heirs to receive a larger share of property than female heirs. The petitioners contended that such provisions violate constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination.
Appearing for the petitioners, senior advocate Prashant Bhushan argued that inheritance rights are civil rights rather than matters of essential religious practice. Therefore, he submitted, they should be subject to constitutional scrutiny. He further contended that after the landmark judgment striking down instant triple talaq, the legal system cannot allow a situation where Muslim women continue to receive unequal rights in matters of succession.
The petition also suggested that if the provisions governing inheritance under the Shariat law were declared unconstitutional, the Indian Succession Act, 1925 could apply to regulate inheritance in such cases.
While acknowledging the seriousness of the issue, the Supreme Court expressed caution about striking down existing provisions without an alternative legal framework in place.
The bench questioned whether invalidating the Shariat inheritance framework could create a legal vacuum, leaving Muslim women without a clear statutory mechanism governing succession rights.
Chief Justice Surya Kant warned that judicial intervention undertaken in haste could inadvertently deprive women of existing protections if no replacement framework is ready. The Court therefore indicated that any comprehensive reform in this area might be better addressed through legislative action.
During the hearing, the bench repeatedly referred to the possibility of a Uniform Civil Code, a concept mentioned in Article 44 of the Constitution of India as a Directive Principle of State Policy.
Justice Bagchi observed that while the petition raises a strong argument about discrimination, the task of reforming personal laws across communities may fall within the domain of Parliament. Echoing this sentiment, the Chief Justice remarked that “the answer is Uniform Civil Code.”
The Court indicated that the legislature is better placed to craft a uniform legal framework that balances constitutional equality with the complexities of India’s plural legal traditions.
The bench also referred to the long-standing precedent set in the State of Bombay v. Narasu Appa Mali, where the Bombay High Court held that personal laws may not be directly subject to constitutional scrutiny in the same manner as statutory law.
At the same time, the petitioners argued that since the Shariat law operates through a statutory enactment the 1937 Act the Court has the authority to examine whether the legislation violates constitutional rights.
This debate reflects a broader constitutional question: to what extent can courts intervene in religious personal laws when they appear to conflict with principles of equality and fundamental rights.
The Court ultimately allowed the petitioners to amend their plea and suggest potential remedies that could be implemented if the challenged provisions were struck down. The matter was then adjourned for further hearing.
The case adds a new dimension to India’s long-running debate over personal laws and gender equality. Previous landmark rulings such as the Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985) and Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) have demonstrated the judiciary’s role in addressing discriminatory practices within personal law frameworks.
However, the present case highlights the limits of judicial intervention when reforms may require comprehensive legislative action. As the Court indicated, the broader question of equal inheritance rights across communities may ultimately depend on whether India moves toward implementing a Uniform Civil Code.
