‘Country Needs Uniform Civil Code’: Karnataka High Court Urges Parliament, States To Enact UCC

The Karnataka High Court has called upon the Parliament and State Legislatures to make earnest efforts towards enacting a Uniform Civil Code (UCC), asserting that such a step is vital to realise the ideals enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India.

According to Live Law, Justice Hanchate Sanjeev Kumar, presiding over a single-judge bench, observed, “The enactment of legislation on Uniform Civil Code as enshrined under Article 44 of the Constitution of India will achieve the object and aspirations enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India, bringing about a true secular democratic republic, unity, integrity of the nation, securing justice, liberty, equality and fraternity.”

The Court further stated, “The Court is of the opinion that bringing a law on Uniform Civil Code and its enforcement certainly give justice to women, achieve equality of status and opportunity for all and accelerate the dream of equality among all women in India irrespective of caste and religion and also assure dignity individually through fraternity.”

Highlighting disparities among personal laws, the Court noted that while Hindu law grants daughters equal birthrights and status as sons, such parity is not reflected in Mahomedan law. As per Live Law’s report, the judgment stated, “When under Hindu Law a daughter is given equal status and right in all respects enjoying rights as that of a son, the same is not so under Mahomedan Law.”

The bench stressed the necessity of a UCC to achieve constitutional equality, saying, “Therefore, the Court is of the opinion that our Country needs a Uniform Civil Code in respect of their Personal Laws and Religion, only then the object of Article 14 of the Constitution of India will be achieved.”

The judgment also recalled that the issue of a UCC was a subject of intense debate in the Constituent Assembly. While some members opposed it, the drafting committee’s chairman, Dr B.R. Ambedkar, had strongly argued in its favour. Other eminent leaders such as Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, Dr Rajendra Prasad, T. Krishnamachari and Maulana Hasrat Mohani had also extended support to the idea.

The Court referred to landmark Supreme Court rulings in Mohd. Ahmed Khan vs. Shah Bano Begum (1985), Sarla Mudgal vs. Union of India (1995), and John Vallamattom vs. Union of India (2003), wherein the apex court had also urged the legislature to enact a Uniform Civil Code.

Karnataka HC’s UCC Remarks Amid Hearing Over Property Dispute

The matter pertained to a dispute among Abdul Basheer Khan’s children over the division of his properties. One of the heirs, Shahnaz Begum—represented by her husband Sirajuddin Macci following her death—alleged she had been denied her rightful share in the estate, Bar and Bench reported.

Sirajuddin filed a suit for partition and separate possession before the City Civil Court in Bengaluru. In November 2019, the trial court ruled that three of the disputed properties were part of the joint family estate and held that Shahnaz Begum’s legal representative was entitled to a one-fifth share in them. However, the court declined relief concerning other properties.

Dissatisfied with the verdict, Abdul Basheer Khan’s sons, Samiulla Khan and Noorulla Khan, and daughter Rahath Jan, filed an appeal before the High Court. Meanwhile, Sirajuddin filed a cross-objection seeking a larger share.

After hearing both matters together, the High Court upheld the trial court’s decision on the joint family nature of the three properties and confirmed the one-fifth share entitlement for Shahnaz Begum’s legal representative. The Court rejected the appellants’ claim that the properties were not ancestral and held that the evidence established their joint family status, as per Bar and Bench.

However, the Court dismissed Sirajuddin’s cross-objection, ruling that there was insufficient evidence to prove the additional properties were also part of the joint family estate.