New Delhi: The Center on Monday extended its in-principle support to a bunch of PILs in the Supreme Court in favor of gender- and religion-neutral equal personal laws, while Muslim parties opposed judicial adjudication of the pleas, saying only to deal with them. The authority rests with the Center and the Parliament.
Appearing for Muslim organizations and individuals, Kapil Sibal told a bench of CJI Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala that he had preliminary objection to the maintainability of a PIL filed by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay. Sibal said, “Issues fall within the jurisdiction of the Government, Parliament or State Legislature. How can the Supreme Court deal with it? It does not have jurisdiction to make laws. The Supreme Court should not be seen passing any orders on these issues.” “
SG Tushar Mehta said, “In principle, there can be no objection to gender- and religion-neutral personal laws. It is up to the government to initiate the process for legislation and Parliament to decide.” Check out what he can do.” Do in these issues:’
Interestingly, for decades the Supreme Court has been scoffing at the frozen feet of the political class on the ‘Uniform Civil Code’ which was to be envisaged by the government under Article 44 of the Constitution. And when some states attempted to enact a Uniform Civil Code, their moves were challenged in the Supreme Court.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Upadhyay, told the SC that the petitioners include women from the Muslim community who want uniform marriage, divorce, maintenance, adoption, guardianship and succession laws as personal laws for Christians, Muslims and Parsis are not yet in force. Not yet codified. Which is for Hindus. One of the petitioners, through senior advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani, told the SC that it had been passing judgments outlining the need for the UCC since 1985 (Shah Bano case) and that it had decided on the entry of women into the Sabarimala temple in Kerala Was told Caught between conflicting arguments, the Supreme Court salvaged itself by asking the petitioners to give a brief summary of each plea and the relief sought.
On December 16, 2020, the Supreme Court took into consideration two PILs seeking a uniform divorce law and uniformity in awarding maintenance and alimony to women. On January 29, 2021, the Supreme Court considered another PIL seeking uniform adoption, succession and guardianship laws.
Three decades after the codification of Hindu personal laws, in the Shah Bano Begum judgment of 1985, the Supreme Court ruled that under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a divorced Muslim woman was entitled to maintenance by her husband after the iddat period until her remarriage. have to pay. ,
The Muslim clergy pressured the then Rajiv Gandhi government to enact the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, thereby making the SC verdict a paper decree. Undeterred, SC continues to rule – in the world! Latifi (2001), Iqbal Bano Case (2007) and Shabana Bano (2009) – that Muslim women cannot be denied the benefits of Section 125.
In the Shah Bano case, the Supreme Court in 1985 had said, “A Uniform Civil Code will help the cause of national integration by removing individual loyalties to the law which have conflicting ideologies:’
In the Sarla Mudgal case, the SC in 1995 said, “Where more than 80% of the citizens have already been brought under the codified personal law, there is no justification for keeping it in any way deferred, now for all citizens UCC started in India.” In the John Vallamattam case (2003), the Supreme Court highlighted the desirability of achieving the goal set by Article 44 of the Constitution.
