Chief Justice Suryakant addressed Uniform Civil Code during a Supreme Court hearing. Meanwhile, he stated UCC remains a constitutional goal. He clarified it has no connection with any religion. The bench heard a case on Muslim women’s inheritance rights. The hearing took place on April 16, 2026, Thursday.
Petition Challenges Shariat Law Provisions
Meanwhile, a bench including Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi heard the matter. Additionally, Paulomi Pavini Shukla and Nyay Nari Foundation filed a PIL. They approached the court under Article 32. Furthermore, they challenged provisions of the Muslim Personal Law Application Act, 1937. They argued these provisions discriminate against women, especially in property rights.
Arguments Highlight Fear Around Uniform Civil Code
During arguments, advocate Prashant Bhushan spoke on Uniform Civil Code. He said civil laws should remain equal for everyone. However, he noted fears among Muslims about imposed Hindu civil code. In response, CJI Suryakant rejected that concern clearly. He stated UCC relates only to constitutional vision.
Court Examines Equality And Religious Protection Claims
Meanwhile, the petitioner argued personal law lacks protection under Article 25. Therefore, discriminatory provisions must face removal. Initially, the court showed hesitation in intervening. However, Bhushan argued a provision violates women’s equality rights. Consequently, the bench agreed to examine the issue further.
Property Rights And Religious Practice Debate
CJI Suryakant stated women’s property rights cannot form essential religious practice. Therefore, Article 25 cannot protect such rights. He explained Article 25 guarantees freedom of religion. However, that freedom remains subject to public order and morality. Additionally, it must respect health and other fundamental rights.
Legal Limits And Future Hearing Timeline
Bhushan argued the 1937 law violates Article 14 equality principles. He stated inheritance issues remain civil matters. Therefore, they do not qualify as essential religious practice. He called unequal shares for women discriminatory. Meanwhile, the bench expressed caution about judicial overreach. CJI stated courts cannot create or amend laws. He insisted Parliament holds that authority. The court asked Bhushan to include affected Muslim women. Earlier, the bench suggested modifying the petition. It also acknowledged the issue’s importance. Finally, the court scheduled the next hearing after four weeks.
