PIL seeking Uniform Civil Code turned down by Delhi High Court

A public interest litigation (PIL) for implementation of apex court’s direction to provide a uniform civil code applicable throughout the Indian jurisdiction turned down by the Delhi High Court.A bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice R S Endlaw dismissed the plea citing various verdicts of the Supreme Court.

The PIL, submitted by Mool Chand Kucheria, referred to the case of Sarla Mudgal vs Union of India of 1995 adjudicated by the Supreme Court. The said legal suit opined to the then government to “secure for the citizens a uniform Civil Code throughout the territory of India” and the execution of it be done in a time-bound manner. He had also sought a direction “for constitution of a committee of religious gurus or experts to see the smooth implementation of the said guidelines."

Disposing of the plea, the high court said, "Nevertheless the fact remains that the Supreme Court, in spite of having held so, did not issue any direction as the petitioner is asking us to issue. We, therefore, do not find any ground to entertain this petition which is dismissed." The high court also noted in its verdict that the apex court in Sarla Mudgal judgment had observed that "the Government would be well advised to entrust the responsibility to the Law Commission to bring about the comprehensive legislation in keeping with modern day concept of human rights."

In the Sarla Mudgal judgment the apex court had held as void the second marriage of a Hindu man who got married again after converting to Islam.

Explaining the Sarala Mudgal Judgment Supreme Court in Lily Thomas Vs. Union of India, it is held that “any direction for the enforcement of Art. 44 of the Constitution could not have been issued by only one of the Judges in Sarla Mudgal’s case. In fact, Sarla Mudgal’s case was considered by this Court in Ahmedabad Women Action Group v. Union of India and it was held that the question regarding the desirability of enacting a Uniform Civil Code did not directly arise in Sarla Mudgal’s case ”.