Those facing action under UCC may approach this Bench: Uttarakhand HC as it hears challenges to the law

Sibal sought a stay on the UCC. While the court did not order a stay, the Bench observed, “If any individual is affected, they may approach this Bench… If action is taken, please come.”

The High Court clubbed the Jamiat petition with others that also challenged the UCC and sought a response from the government within six weeks. The next hearing is listed on April 1.

The Jamiat’s petition prayed that UCC rules and provisions regarding marriage, divorce, succession, and live-in relationships be declared violative of fundamental rights and “repugnant” to the special enactment of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937. It also prayed that an order be issued declaring that the Supreme Court ruling in the Shayara Bano vs Union of India, pertaining to the provisions of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, continue to operate notwithstanding provisions of the UCC.

The petition challenged the UCC on the grounds that listing out degrees of prohibited relationship for marriage and live-in relationships is in violation of Article 14 and Article 19 of the Constitution as well as the fundamental right to privacy “by putting an embargo upon the freedom of choice for a spouse in marriage when different religions and denominations permit such relationships”.

It also challenged intestate and testamentary succession under the UCC. “It is submitted that the religious tenets applicable to Muslims under the Muslim personal law or Shariat prohibit making any will beyond 1/3rd of the property of a Muslim. Any will which exceeds the 1/3rd rule becomes, therefore, void,” the petition said.

It said that the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, is not a law regulating divorce, marriage, succession, and inheritance but a special enactment providing protection to a Muslim’s freedom to practice religion. “The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, has been held in Shayara Bano v Union of India (2017), by a five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court not to be a law regulating divorce or marriage or succession but is considered as a special law providing the Muslims option to be governed by the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) in all questions (save questions relating to agricultural land),” the petition said.

The petition also referred to the Law Commission of India’s ‘Consultation Paper on Reform of Family Laws in India’, which said there was no consensus in the country on the subject of the Uniform Civil Code and the best way forward may be to preserve the diversity of personal laws while ensuring that such laws do not contradict fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.