- The Supreme Court said striking down all personal laws could create a legal vacuum
- The court heard a petition challenging discriminatory Muslim women's succession rights
- A bench suggested broadening the petition to propose alternatives to personal laws
The Uniform Civil Code is key to restore the rights of large section of Indian women, but striking down all personal laws at one go could create a leal vacuum, the Supreme Court said today while hearing a petition against the succession rights of women under the Muslim Personal law. The petition challenged the alleged discriminatory succession rights for Muslim women under the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937. The court said the scope of the petition should be broadened and it should suggest what might fill that vacuum.
The court's observations come amid the BJP's push for a Uniform Civil Code -- meaning every law would apply to everyone irrespective of religion. Currently different communities have different laws on inheritance, adoption and marriage and divorce. Critics say levelling the ground would involve interference in religious practices.
The bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that not just in the Muslim community, a significant section of Indian women continues to be deprived of their rights under different personal laws.
If the succession rights for Muslim women under Sharia law is examined, scrutiny can be made of other personal law systems as well - including aspects of the Hindu Undivided Family under Hindu personal law, the judges said.
But "striking down an entire personal law can create a void in society," the court said.
Read: Muslim Woman Wants To Follow Secular Property Law, Court Seeks Centre Reply
"This will have multifarious and large consequences not only for Muslims but also for Hindus... To declare personal laws void and create a vacuum... it may be best to defer the issue to legislative wisdom so that Parliament can bring about a law on a Uniform Civil Code," Justice Bagchi said.
He also pointed out that certain practices -- such as unilateral divorce in some personal law systems -- raise complex legal questions and questioned whether courts can invalidate all relationships founded on such laws.
Agreeing with the observation, CJI Surya Kant said that the answer, as correctly pointed out, lies in a Uniform Civil Code.
Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioner, had argued that the court could declare that personal law rights of Muslim women cannot be inferior to those of Muslim men.
Pointing to the Supreme Court's 2017 judgment in the Shayara Bano case -- which struck down 'triple talaq' as an unconstitutional practice -- Bhushan argued that there was a statute, the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, which recognised a discriminatory inheritance provision, and the court can interfere with the statute to that extent.
Read: Shah Bano To Shayara Bano: BJP's History Attack On Congress In Waqf Debate
The bench suggested the petition should be broadened to include suggestions about a replacement in case personal laws are struck down.
"Why don't you amend the plea and think of some alternatives so that more credence can be given," the Chief Justice told Bhushan. "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 of 1937 goes away, then what is the question? Will it not create an unnecessary void?" he added.
The court then granted the petitioner time to file an amended plea, highlighting the discrimination faced by women under personal laws. The matter has been posted for hearing on a later date.
