The high court made the remarks while adjudicating a property dispute among the children of a man named Abdul Basheer Khan.
Published Apr 06, 2025 | 10:07 AM ⚊ Updated Apr 06, 2025 | 10:07 AM
The Karnataka High Court. (Creative Commons)
Synopsis: The Karnataka High Court urged both Parliament and state Legislatures to actively work towards enacting a Uniform Civil Code. The court highlighted how personal laws differ across religious communities and how these disparities affect justice and equality stating,
In a significant observation, the Karnataka High Court urged both Parliament and state Legislatures to actively work towards enacting a Uniform Civil Code (UCC). The court emphasised that such legislation is essential to uphold the principles laid out in the Preamble of the Indian Constitution.
Justice Hanchate Sanjeev Kumar, presiding over a single-judge bench, remarked, “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 high court made the remarks on Friday, 5 April, while adjudicating a property dispute among the children of a man named Abdul Basheer Khan.
The case was initiated by Sirajuddin Macci, representing his late wife Shahnaz Begum, who alleged she had been denied her rightful share in her father’s estate.
The court highlighted how personal laws differ across religious communities and how these disparities affect justice and equality stating,
“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.”
Comparing Hindu and Muslim personal laws, the Court observed, “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 (Sharia).”
It stressed that constitutional equality, particularly under Article 14, can only be realised through the implementation of a UCC.
The judgment recalled debates from the Constituent Assembly on the UCC such as Dr BR Ambedkar, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, Dr Rajendra Prasad, T Krishnamachari, and Maulana Hasrat Mohani who all supported the idea.
The Karnataka High Court also referred to key Supreme Court judgements that had called on the legislature to implement a UCC. These were Mohammad Ahmed Khan vs. Shah Bano Begum (1985), Sarla Mudgal vs Union of India (1995), and John Vallamattom vs Union of India (2003).
Justice Sanjeev Kumar ordered the Registrar General of the High Court to forward a copy of this order to the Principal Law Secretaries of both the Union of India and the state of Karnataka with a request to make an endeavour in Legislating on Uniform Civil Code fulfilling aspirations of Article 44 of the Constitution of India.
A City Civil Court in Bengaluru had ruled in 2019 that three disputed properties formed part of a joint family estate, awarding a one-fifth share to Shahnaz Begum’s legal representative. However, the court denied claims to other properties.
The decision was appealed by Abdul Basheer Khan’s sons, Samiulla Khan and Noorulla Khan, and daughter Rahath Jan. Simultaneously, Sirajuddin filed a cross-objection seeking a larger share.
The high court upheld the lower court’s ruling regarding the joint family nature of the three properties, affirming the one-fifth share to Shahnaz Begum’s representative.
It rejected the claim that the properties were not ancestral, stating the evidence supported their joint family status.
(Edited by Muhammed Fazil.)
