The Supreme Court allowed the writ petition in part by disposing of the case as a representation to the Law Commission of India. The Court refrained from issuing any mandamus or direct judicial instruction on the enactment of a separate Buddhist Personal Law or the constitutionality of certain Hindu personal law provisions. Instead, the Court directed that the petitioner’s materials be forwarded to the Law Commission for comprehensive examination and recommendations.
The petition was filed by the Buddhist Personal Law Action Committee, a trust dedicated to propagating and protecting Buddhism in India. The petition sought a writ of mandamus or suitable directions compelling the Government of India to enact a personal law specific for Buddhists. It also sought declarations that Explanation II to Article 25 of the Constitution and several sections of Hindu personal laws were ultra vires as they violated Articles 14, 15, 25(1), 26, and 29 of the Constitution by imposing Hindu law on Buddhist citizens.
The Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi noted that substantially identical issues had been raised before it in earlier proceedings. The proposals and views on these matters had already been submitted to the Law Commission of India for consideration. Further, a communication from the Ministry of Law and Justice dated 20 December 2024 confirmed that the Law Commission was actively examining related issues as part of the Uniform Civil Code project and that legislative action on personal laws would be considered only after receiving the Commission’s recommendations.
The Court recognized the petitioners’ constitutional contentions but held that the power to enact or amend personal laws lies primarily with the legislature, not the judiciary under Article 32. Given the ongoing examination by the Law Commission of the Uniform Civil Code and related personal law reforms, the Court emphasized that issuing a mandamus at this stage would be inappropriate. The Court reasoned that the Law Commission, as a premier expert body, is better suited to evaluate such complex issues holistically and make informed recommendations. The Court also noted that the Law Commission had already solicited stakeholder views on these matters as part of its Uniform Civil Code consultation process.
The Supreme Court disposed of the writ petition by treating it as a representation to the Law Commission of India and directed the Registry to forward all materials submitted by the petitioner. It further requested that the Law Commission engage with the petitioner’s representatives to fully consider their viewpoints.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Shanti Prakash, AOR Mr. Satyapal Singh, Adv. Mr. B. K. Gautam, Adv. Mr. Rajender Kumar, Adv. Mr. Mahendra Singh, Adv. Mr. Satya Prakash Sagar, Adv. Mr. Kafeel Ahmad, Adv. Mr. Tasleem Arif, Adv. Mr. Mohd Riyaz, Adv. Mr. Shaswat Kumar, Adv.
