In a significant development that could reignite one of India’s most debated constitutional issues, the Karnataka High Court has urged both the Union and State Governments to make earnest efforts toward enacting a Uniform Civil Code (UCC). The court’s call isn’t just a reiteration of Article 44 of the Constitution—it is a powerful reminder of the judiciary’s growing concern about the unequal treatment of Indian citizens, especially women, under diverse personal laws.
Background: The Court’s Observations
Justice Hanchate Sanjeev Kumar, in a landmark ruling while adjudicating a family property dispute, made strong observations about the need for a Uniform Civil Code. While deciding on inheritance rights in a Muslim family, the court noticed a significant disparity in how women are treated under Mahomedan Law as compared to Hindu Law. This, the court said, violates the constitutional vision of equality.
The court noted that under Hindu Law, daughters enjoy equal rights as sons in inheritance matters. However, under Muslim personal law, a sister is treated as a “residuary” and not a “sharer” like her brothers, reducing her share significantly. Citing this as a prime example of gender inequality in personal laws, the court emphasized the urgent need for uniformity in civil laws, particularly to ensure justice and equality for women across religions.
Article 44 and the UCC Debate
Article 44 of the Constitution of India, under the Directive Principles of State Policy, states: “The State shall endeavor to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.” While this article is non-justiciable (i.e., not enforceable by courts), it lays down an aspirational goal for the Indian state.
The High Court’s judgment called for transforming this constitutional ideal into a reality. Justice Kumar remarked that enacting the UCC would fulfill the promises made in the Preamble to the Constitution—justice, equality, liberty, and fraternity.
The court further stated, “Bringing a law on UCC and its enforcement will give justice to women, ensure equality of status and opportunity for all, and accelerate the dream of equality among women irrespective of caste and religion.”
The Current Legal Landscape
Some states have taken steps toward implementing a form of UCC. Goa already follows a form of UCC based on the Portuguese Civil Code. More recently, Uttarakhand made headlines by becoming the first state in independent India to pass a Uniform Civil Code law.
The Karnataka High Court directed that its judgment be forwarded to the Principal Law Secretaries of both the Union of India and the State of Karnataka in the hope that legislative action will follow. The ruling is not binding on Parliament, but its persuasive value may influence political discourse.
Judicial Precedents and Historical Support
Justice Kumar referenced several landmark Supreme Court rulings that have historically called for a UCC. These include:
- Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985) – The court upheld a Muslim woman’s right to maintenance, sparking a nationwide debate on the UCC.
- Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India (1995) – The court emphasized the need for UCC to prevent exploitation through religious conversions for marriage.
- John Vallamattom v. Union of India (2003) – The court struck down a provision of the Indian Succession Act for being discriminatory against Christians.
The High Court also noted that key figures in the Constituent Assembly like Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, and Dr. Rajendra Prasad had supported the idea of a uniform code during the drafting of the Constitution.
Case That Prompted the Observation
The case at hand involved a property dispute between siblings over the assets of the deceased Shahnaz Begum. Her brothers and sister contended they were entitled to an equal share in her properties. The trial court granted unequal shares based on Mahomedan inheritance laws, a decision later upheld by the High Court.
The High Court meticulously examined the ownership and acquisition of two properties—Suit Schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’. It concluded that both properties were jointly acquired by the deceased and her husband, and not self-acquired by Shahnaz Begum alone, as claimed by her siblings. As such, the property distribution had to align with the inheritance rules under Muslim personal law.
Justice Kumar highlighted the stark differences between Hindu and Muslim inheritance laws, especially in how they affect women’s rights. He used this as the fulcrum of his argument for a Uniform Civil Code.
Impact and Legal Implications
While the Karnataka High Court’s judgment does not mandate any legislative action, it adds a powerful voice to a growing chorus calling for legal uniformity across religious lines. The ruling could prompt policymakers to revisit the long-standing debate on personal laws versus secular legislation in civil matters.
The timing is crucial. With Uttarakhand passing a UCC law and the Law Commission of India actively seeking public opinions, the national conversation around UCC is intensifying.
Conclusion
The Karnataka High Court’s judgment is more than a legal directive—it’s a constitutional call to action. The message is clear: personal laws that perpetuate gender inequality cannot coexist with the constitutional vision of justice and equality.
If India is to realize the ideals of its Constitution, especially for its women, the path forward may indeed require enacting a Uniform Civil Code that transcends religious boundaries while preserving individual dignity and constitutional morality.
#UniformCivilCode #KarnatakaHighCourt #Article44 #LegalEquality #WomensRights #IndianLaw #UCCIndia #JusticeForWomen #ConstitutionalLaw #LegalNews
lawrota.com 
Leave a comment