Delhi High Court bats for Uniform Civil Code; cites conflict in personal laws and criminal law

The Delhi High Court batted for enactment of a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) that does not allow personal or customary laws to override national legislation [Hamid Raza v State of NCT of Delhi]. 

Justice Arun Monga noted that under Islamic law, a minor girl attaining puberty may lawfully marry though under Indian criminal law, such a marriage renders the husband an offender under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act). 

This situation presents a dilemma about whether society should be criminalised for adhering to long-standing personal laws, the judge asked.  

“Is it not the time to move towards a Uniform Civil Code (UCC), ensuring a single framework where personal or customary law does not override national legislation,” the Court asked. 

Justice Monga said that this conflict warrants legislative clarity and the legislature must decide whether to continue criminalising entire communities or to promote peace and harmony through legal certainty. 

“No doubt, opponents of UCC caution that uniformity risks eroding religious freedom guaranteed to every citizen as a fundamental right in the Constitution of India. However, such freedom cannot extend to practices that expose individuals to criminal liability,” the Court said. 

It added that a pragmatic middle path could be to standardise core protections, such as prohibiting child marriages across the board with penal consequences, as they directly conflict with both BNS and POCSO. 

“At the same time, less contentious personal matters may be allowed to evolve gradually within respective communities. The decision is best left to the wisdom of the law makers of the country. But, lasting solution must soon come from the legislature/ parliament,” the Court stressed. 

The Bench made these observations while deciding a bail plea filed by Hamid Raza, charged under IPC Section 376 (rape) and POCSO Act, for marrying a minor girl who was allegedly sexually assaulted by her stepfather and bore a child from that abuse. 

The prosecutrix, though recorded as a minor by birth records and FIR, claimed to be an adult (around 20 years) and voluntarily married Raza under Islamic law with a valid marriage certificate. They also had a child together. The prosecutrix supported Raza in his bail. 

However, the prosecution alleged the girl was a minor at marriage, rendering the relationship and marriage illegal. 

Notably, the FIR against Raza was lodged by the girl’s stepfather, who sexually abused her and allegedly filed the complaint to shield himself from prosecution. 

After considering the case, the Court noted the contradictions between the Islamic law and the penal laws in the country. 

It said that while the Islamic personal law permits marriage upon attainment of puberty, presumed to be 15 years for girls, the IPC/ BNS and the POCSO Act prohibit marriage or sexual relations with minors, criminalising such acts regardless of religious customs.

However, the Court found that in the present case, the prosecutrix was living with Raza before his arrest and the FIR was lodged by her stepfather in an effort to protect himself and conceal his own offences. 

Justice Monga also discovered procedural violations in the accused’s arrest and detention.

Therefore, the Court granted regular bail to Raza, who had been on interim bail since September 19, 2025. 

Advocates Furkan Ali Mirza, Asim Kirmani, Haris Ahmad and Abdul Wasih appeared for Hamid Raza. 

Senior Advocate Nandita Rao acted as amicus curiae. She was assisted by advocate Amit Peswani. 

Professor Faizan Mustafa (Vice Chancellor, Chanakya National Law University), Dr Mohd Khalid Khan (Department Of Islamic Studies, Jamia Milia Islamia) and Nehal Ahmed (Assistant Professor of Law, Woxsen University Hyderabad) helped the Court with the understanding of the Islamic law. 

Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Sanjeev Sabharwal appeared for the State. 

[Read Judgment]