The Delhi High Court has reignited the long-simmering question of a Uniform Civil Code (UCC), calling attention to the clash between personal laws and the nation’s criminal statutes.
Justice Arun Monga, while hearing a bail plea, noted the stark contradiction: under Islamic law, a girl who has attained puberty may marry, yet under Indian criminal law such a union amounts to child marriage, exposing the husband to prosecution under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the POCSO Act.
“Isn’t it time,” the Court asked, “to move toward a framework where personal or customary law does not override national legislation?”
The judge warned that this legal tug-of-war leaves society in turmoil—should communities be criminalised for following age-old customs, or should the law step in to harmonise faith and statute?
Opponents of the UCC argue that enforcing uniformity risks hollowing out religious freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. Yet, Justice Monga stressed that freedoms cannot stretch to practices that turn believers into offenders. A workable balance, the Court suggested, might be to outlaw practices like child marriage across all communities, while leaving less divisive personal matters to evolve gradually.
The observations came while deciding the bail of Hamid Raza, accused of marrying a girl recorded as a minor. The twist: the girl, allegedly abused by her stepfather, insisted she was around 20, had voluntarily married Raza under Islamic law, and even had a child with him. The FIR against Raza had in fact been lodged by the same stepfather—who, according to the Court, seemed more interested in covering up his own crimes.
Finding both contradictions in the law and procedural flaws in Raza’s arrest, the Court granted him regular bail.
To assist in untangling the knots of personal law, the bench consulted academics and legal experts from across the country. In the end, Justice Monga left the ball firmly in Parliament’s court: the need for legislative clarity cannot be delayed forever.