Karnataka High Court Urges Parliament, States To Enact Uniform Civil Code

The Karnataka High Court has urged both the Parliament and State Legislatures to make a concerted effort to enact a law that would bring about a Uniform Civil Code (UCC), emphasising its importance in upholding the constitutional vision of equality, secularism, and justice for all citizens-especially women.

The strong recommendation came from a single-judge bench presided over by Justice Hanchate Sanjeev Kumar while ruling on a civil appeal involving a property dispute among siblings and the husband of a late Muslim woman, Shahnaz Begum.

The case raised broader questions around inheritance laws governed by personal religious statutes and their implications on gender justice.

Justice Kumar asserted that the enactment of a Uniform Civil Code, as envisioned under Article 44 of the Constitution, would fulfill the ideals enshrined in the Preamble-namely, justice, liberty, equality, fraternity, and national unity.

"The country needs a Uniform Civil Code in respect of Personal Laws and religion," the Court on April 4 observed, "only then the object of Article 14 of the Constitution of India will be achieved." The Court underscored that although women across India are equal citizens under the Constitution, they are subjected to unequal treatment due to religion-based personal laws.

The bench contrasted inheritance rights under Hindu and Muslim personal laws to illustrate this disparity.

While Hindu law grants daughters equal rights in ancestral property, Muslim personal law distinguishes between brothers and sisters-granting brothers the status of 'sharers' while the sisters often fall under the 'residuary' category, thereby receiving a lesser share.

Noting that states like Goa and Uttarakhand have already taken steps towards implementing a UCC, the court directed the Registrar General to send a copy of its judgment to the Principal Law Secretaries of both the union government and the Karnataka government, in the hope that legislative efforts toward enacting such a code would be initiated.

The court also drew attention to historical support for the UCC by eminent leaders and constitutional framers.

It cited speeches by Dr BR Ambedkar, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, Dr Rajendra Prasad, T. Krishnamachari, and Maulana Hasrat Mohani, noting their backing for a uniform set of civil laws to promote national unity and equality.

The court was adjudicating appeals filed by Samiulla Khan and others, who were contesting the distribution of properties left behind by their sister Shahnaz Begum. The plaintiffs-two brothers and a sister-claimed that both properties in question (referred to as Schedule 'A' and Schedule 'B') were self-acquired by the woman who passed away, and therefore, all three plaintiffs, along with the woman's husband (the defendant), were equally entitled to a 50-50 division.

However, the trial court had earlier partially accepted their claim, granting each brother a 1/10th share in both properties, the sister a 1/20th and 1/10th share in Schedule 'A' and 'B' properties respectively, and the defendant husband a majority share of 3/4th in Schedule 'A' and 1/2 in Schedule 'B'.

In the High Court, the defendant (husband) argued that the properties were not solely acquired by Shahnaz Begum and that she had not inherited any property from her father.

The High Court carefully examined the facts and found that both Schedule 'A' and 'B' properties were jointly acquired by the woman who passed away and her husband, even though they were registered in her name. Schedule 'B' was purchased when the husband had retired, but the Court ruled that the timing of purchase alone could not establish the property as being solely from her earnings.

Rejecting the plaintiffs' appeal, the court ruled that the properties were joint acquisitions and not self-earned by the woman alone.

Accordingly, it revised the trial court's distribution and awarded 1/10th share each to two brothers in both Schedule 'A' and 'B' properties. And awarded 1/20th share in both Schedule 'A' and 'B' to the sister, treating her as a 'residuary' heir under Mahomedan law.

The defendant was awarded 3/4th share in both properties.

This judgment is not just a ruling on a family inheritance dispute; it carries wider legal and political implications.

Justice Kumar's observations on the need for a Uniform Civil Code place the spotlight once again on the long-pending directive under Article 44 of the Constitution, which states that "the State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India." While the legal suggestion by a High Court does not compel the legislature to act, it adds to the growing body of judicial opinion urging a legislative response to the issue.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

India