SC asks Law panel to consider representation challenging applicability of Hindu laws to Buddhists
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, hearing the request of the Buddhist Personal Law Action Committee, asked the Law Commission to treat the plea as a declaration that certain existing legal provisions warranting constitutional and statutory changes are contrary to the fundamental rights and cultural practices of the Buddhist society.
Buddhists are subject to the same personal laws as Hindus as stated in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 and Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.
Article 25 of the Constitution includes Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs in the definition of “Hindu” for the purposes of these laws.
However, initially the CJI questioned the nature of the relief sought.
“Do you want a mandamus to change the Constitution and personal laws? Where did you appeal to the government authority? Now you want us to take into account Kesavananda Bharati and change the basic structure as well,” Justice Kant asked. Petitioner’s counsel argued that Buddhists constitute a distinct community and that representations were made “many times.” The bench said the Law Commission is the only expert body in the country and is usually chaired by a former Supreme Court judge or Chief Justice of the high court.
“They would welcome a person like you and get help. The Law Commission may suggest such constitutional amendments,” he said.
In a December 2024 notification of the Ministry of Law and Justice, the Board stated that the 21st Law Commission examined the issue in its deliberations on the Single Civil Code and the opinions of various stakeholders were taken.
The bench stated that the Law bench recommended the amendment, repeal and enactment of new laws to bring them in line with “our constitutional values and morals” and that an order cannot be issued by the apex court for the enactment or enactment of a law or provision.
“The urgent writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs in the public interest… The petitioner’s foundation is working for the propagation of Buddhism in India. It states that certain provisions are contrary to the fundamental rights of Buddhists… There is no doubt that the Law Commission is one of the leading institutions headed by a former judge of this court or a chief justice of the Supreme Court…” the order stated.
The legal panel took a “holistic view” of the issue and made recommendations accordingly, the board said.
“In order to assist the Law Commission in expeditiously disposing of the pending matters, we consider it appropriate to direct that the plea be submitted on a representative basis to the Law Commission of India (LCI). Accordingly, the registry has directed to send a complete paper book to the LCI for consideration of the material placed on record by the petitioner.”
The bench said the legal bench could allow a representative of the petitioner organization to “give quality assurance” to him based on his point of view.
