Supreme Court seeks Centre’s response on plea challenging Shariat inheritance provisions
The Facts
- The Supreme Court agreed to examine a plea challenging provisions of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937.
- The bench was led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and included Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi/Panchol.
- The court issued notice and sought a response from the Union government, including the Ministry of Minority Affairs.
- The petition argues that the challenged Shariat inheritance provisions are discriminatory against women and violate constitutional equality guarantees.
- The plea was filed by Poulomi Pavini Shukla and the Nyaya Naari Foundation, and Prashant Bhushan appeared for the petitioners.
- During the hearing, Chief Justice Surya Kant said that a Uniform Civil Code is a "constitutional ambition" and is not tied to any particular religion.
- The bench expressed concern that striking down or altering provisions of the 1937 law could amount to judicial legislation or overreach.
- The court asked that some aggrieved Muslim women be made part of the proceedings.
Context
What law is being challenged?
The petition challenges parts of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, specifically as they relate to inheritance and testamentary succession NDTV,Hindu,Telangana Today.
What did the Supreme Court say about the Uniform Civil Code?
Chief Justice Surya Kant said a Uniform Civil Code is a "constitutional ambition" and "has nothing to do with any religion in particular" Indian Express,ETV Bharat News,NDTV.
Why did the bench hesitate before taking up the case?
The bench indicated that deleting or changing provisions in the 1937 law could cross into judicial legislation, reflecting concern about the limits of the court’s role even as it agreed to examine the constitutional challenge NDTV,India Today,ThePrint.
How left and right read it
The court’s decision to examine whether Shariat inheritance provisions discriminate against women puts constitutional equality and women’s property rights squarely at the center of the case. By asking that aggrieved Muslim women be included in the proceedings while also seeking the Union government’s response, the bench is signaling that those directly affected should have a voice in a dispute with serious consequences.
The hearing highlights two constitutional principles that often pull in different directions: equal treatment under the law and judicial restraint. Chief Justice Surya Kant’s remark that a Uniform Civil Code is a constitutional ambition, coupled with the bench’s warning against judicial legislation, suggests the court is taking the challenge seriously while recognizing that broad legal change may ultimately belong to the political branches.
The receipts — all 14 sources
Wire services (1)
Independent coverage (13)
Facts first. Then every angle.
The day’s biggest stories in one short brief — the facts everyone agrees on, then the competing values behind the headlines. Free in your inbox.