NEW DELHI: In yet another strong pitch for “one nation one law”, Supreme Court on Tuesday said Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is the most effective tool to remove the prevailing discrimination against women in marriage, succession, inheritance and property rights under Muslim personal law and other customary laws.This statement – “most effective answer is UCC” – came from a bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi after advocate Prashant Bhushan said inferior inheritance rights given to women under the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, violated their right to equality and non-discrimination, and hence, must be struck down as unconstitutional, like triple talaq.Appearing for PIL petitioner Poulomi P Shukla, Bhushan said it is inconceivable that Muslim women in Uttarakhand, which has enacted UCC, would enjoy equal property inheritance rights with their male siblings, but Muslim women in Delhi or other states in India would be deprived of the same.
Israel Iran War
The bench said inequalities in inheritance rights of women compared to their male siblings are present even in Hindu Undivided Families (HUFs) and tribal societies. “This court has already recommended in its judgment the directive principles of state policies under Article 44 (UCC),” the bench said.SC told Bhushan that he has made a very good case of discrimination against Muslim women but striking down of a standalone provision does not take away the discrimination that inheres within Muslim personal law. “Triple talaq is declared unconstitutional (and subsequently banned by a Parliament enacted legislation). But grounds of divorce in Muslim marriage remain asymmetrical. The right to dissolution of marriage by Muslim women continues to be limited under the 1937 Act. But a Muslim man has much wider grounds to give divorce,” Justice Bagchi said. CJI Kant said, “The most effective answer, as articulated by Justice Bagchi, is UCC.”Bhushan said this is ideal, but till that comes, should Muslim women continue to suffer violation of their Article 14 right to equality in inheritance, which is not an essential religious practice, but a civil right. Justice Bagchi asked, “What about the rights in marriage and inheritance of scheduled tribes? Many such discriminations are there in society.”Referring to polygamy permitted for Muslim men under Section 2 of the 1937 Act, Justice Bagchi said, “The basic equality of one man to one woman that is monogamous marriage, has it been achieved throughout the country? Can we declare all bigamous or polygamous marriages under the personal laws to be unconstitutional as it violates the right to equality under Article 14?””All these have to appeal to conscience of the legislature to bring into reality the object of Article 44 in Directive Principles of State Policy chapter of the Constitution,” SC said.When the bench said if some Muslim women or wakf board had filed the petition, it would have been different, Bhushan responded by saying he can bring in as many Muslim women as petitioners to challenge the discriminatory provision on inheritance in the 1937 law. “A large number of Muslim women are aggrieved by this discriminatory practice,” he said.The bench said if the court struck down the inheritance provision of the 1937 Act, it would create a vacuum and deprive Muslim women whatever little they were getting. Bhushan said SC can say that the inheritance among Muslims would be governed by secular Indian Succession Act. SC asked him to contemplate all situations that would arise and file an amended petition.
