Daijiworld Media Network - Bengaluru
Bengaluru, Apr 6: The Karnataka High Court has called on the Parliament and state legislatures to move towards enacting a Uniform Civil Code (UCC), stating that such a law would promote gender equality, strengthen secularism, and uphold individual dignity.
A bench led by Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar made the observations on April 4 while adjudicating a property dispute among the heirs of Abdul Basheer Khan, who had died intestate, leaving behind both inherited and self-acquired assets.
In its order, the court directed, "The Registrar General is requested to forward a copy of this judgment to the Principal Law Secretaries of the Union of India and the State of Karnataka, with the hope that steps will be taken to legislate a Uniform Civil Code in line with the objective of Article 44 of the Constitution."
The bench stressed that enacting a UCC would fulfill the vision set out in the Preamble of the Constitution, fostering a true secular, democratic republic that guarantees justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity.
The judgment highlighted that a Uniform Civil Code would particularly benefit women, ensuring equality of status and opportunity across castes and religions and reinforcing the dignity and individuality of every citizen.
"A law on Uniform Civil Code will advance the principles enshrined in the Constitution and accelerate the realization of equality among all women in India, irrespective of caste or religion," the bench noted.
The High Court pointed out that some states, such as Goa and Uttarakhand, had already initiated steps towards implementing the UCC, and expressed optimism that others would follow.
Article 44 of the Constitution, under the Directive Principles of State Policy, advises the state to strive to secure a Uniform Civil Code across the country.
On the property dispute before it, the High Court upheld the lower court’s ruling, affirming Shanaz Begum’s entitlement to a share in the three properties left by Abdul Basheer Khan. It rejected the appeal that contended the properties were not ancestral and dismissed a cross-objection seeking a larger share.