The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notice to the Central government and other concerned authorities on a plea challenging the Constitutional validity of provisions of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 for discriminating against Muslim women in matters of succession. [Poulomi Pavini Shukla & Anr v Union of India & Anr.]

A Bench comprising of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi emphasised the limits of judicial intervention and indicated that the challenge should be supported by Muslim women directly affected by the law.

“Please bring aggrieved petitioners on record next time. Denial of right is not disputed... that is there. Add them as intervenors in the case,” directed CJI Kant while issuing notice.

Justice Bagchi remarked on the nature of reform in religious personal laws.

“It should seem as a reformation from within the faith itself. If a reformation is being giving rise to, it should come within the sect itself,” he said.

He further cautioned about the judiciary’s role in such matters.

“We have to see if it's within domain of judiciary to bring in social reform,” he said.

The petition said that the current rules of intestate succession under Muslim personal law put women at a clear disadvantage.

It said daughters get smaller shares than sons and are often pushed lower in the order of heirs. Once these rules are given legal backing through the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, the plea contended, they raise serious constitutional concerns for violating equality guarantees under Articles 14 and 15.

It also pointed to the broader structure of the law, arguing that it limits women’s economic independence. Rules on who gets priority, who gets excluded, and the lack of more balanced distribution methods end up reinforcing unequal access to property.

When applied in courts, the petition said, this framework continues to deny women a fair share and falls short of modern standards of gender justice.

The petition also detailed a broader challenge to restrictions on testamentary freedom under Islamic law, arguing that Muslims are uniquely constrained in their ability to distribute property by will.

"Muslims are subjected to a restriction on testamentary freedom which does not apply to other citizens of India and such restriction operates as a direct civil and economic disability," said the plea.

It argued that this disproportionately impacts women and undermines their ability to secure a fair share in family wealth.

Appearing for the petitioners, advocate Prashant Bhushan argued that the provisions governing inheritance under Shariat law result in unequal treatment of women.

“We are challenging. Saying women will get half or even less than half compared to male counterparts is discriminatory. This is a civil case and not essential religious practice as under Article 25,” he submitted.

However, CJI Kant observed that the provisions may be defended as part of personal law.

"Someone will argue that it is personal law."

“Personal law yes. But not essential religious practice. It is violative of Article 14 (right to equality). Thus has to be struck down. Once struck down, Indian Succession Act, which is agnostic to males and females, can apply,” responded Bhushan.

He further contended that once such provisions are struck down, a gender-neutral framework could be applied.

“Once this is struck down, the court was thinking of vacuum created. The court can say Indian Succession Act shall apply to Muslims,” he said.

The Court, however, expressed reservations about stepping into what it viewed as the legislative domain.

“That will go into legislating,” responded CJI Kant.

When Bhushan clarified that he was only suggesting reading down the provisions, Justice Bagchi pointed to the higher threshold required in such cases.

“Threshold of reading down is higher since you are asking us to delete something. In some cases we decide the area was empty. Here shariat law exists,” he observed.

Bhushan submitted that the rules governing succession under Shariat law are complex and lead to unequal outcomes.

“Rules under shariah law for succession is so complicated that even lawyers cannot figure. So let there be no discrimination,” he said.

On the issue of a uniform framework, Bhushan said he was not seeking imposition of any religious code.

“I tell my Muslim friends uniform civil code should be imposed. Civil code should be uniform. They think Hindu code shall be forced upon them but that is not true,” he said.

The CJI responded,

“It is even a Constitutional duty.”

“But it is part of religion,” observed Justice Bagchi.

“Even if part of religious practice, it has to be struck down,” maintained Bhushan.

At the same time, the Court acknowledged the broader public importance of the issue.

“Of course public interest element is there. But some aggrieved person has to come,” observed CJI Kant.

The Court ultimately posted the matter for hearing after a few weeks, granting time to the petitioners to implead more aggrieved persons.

[Read Live Coverage]