NEW DELHI: The Centre on Monday lent its in-principle support to a lot of PILs in the Supreme Court in favour of gender- and religion-neutral uniform individual laws even as the Muslim sides opposed a judicial adjudication of the pleas, stating only the Centre and Parliament have the jurisdiction to deal with them.Appearing for Muslim organisations and people, Kapil Sibal informed a bench of CJI Chandrachud and Justices P S Narasimha and J B Pardiwala he had preliminary objections to the maintainability of these PILs led by one submitted by supporter Ashwini Upadhyay.

The issues squarely fall within the domain of the government, Parliament or state legislature.

How can the SC handle it? It has no jurisdiction to enact laws.

The SC shouldnt be seen passing any order in these problems, Sibal said.SG Tushar Mehta said, In concept, there can not be any objection to gender- and religion-neutral personal laws.

It is for the government to initiate the process for legislation and Parliament to decide.

The SC can analyze what all it can do in these problems.

Surprisingly, for decades, the SC has actually been buffooning the political classs frozen feet on the Uniform Civil Code, which was to be imagined by the federal government under Article 44 of the Constitution.

And when some states made attempts to frame the UCC, their relocations were challenged in the SC.Appearing for Upadhyay, senior supporter Gopal Shankaranarayanan informed the SC that the petitioners consisted of women from the Muslim neighborhood who desire uniform marital relationship, divorce, upkeep, adoption, guardianship and succession laws as the personal laws for Christians, Muslims and Parsis are not yet codified like those for Hindus.

Among the petitioners, through senior supporter Mahalaxmi Pavani, informed the SC that it had actually been passing judgment after judgment underlining the requirement for the UCC considering that 1985 (Shah Bano case) and has ruled on the entry of females into the Sabarimala temple in Kerala.

Caught in between contrasting arguments, the SC bailed itself out by asking the petitioners to give a short synopsis of each petition and the reliefs sought.On December 16, 2020, the SC had actually amused with trepidation 2 PILs seeking uniform divorce laws and uniformity in grant of maintenance and spousal support to ladies.

On January 29, 2021, the SC amused another PIL looking for uniform adoption, succession, and guardianship laws.Three years after codification of Hindu individual laws, the SC in the Shah Bano Begum judgment in 1985 had actually ruled that under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a separated Muslim woman would need to be paid maintenance by her partner after iddat period till she remarries.The Muslim clergy prevailed upon the then Rajiv Gandhi federal government to enact Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, rendering the SC decision a paper decree.

Undeterred, the SC continued to rule - in Danial Latifi (2001 ), Iqbal Bano case (2007) and in Shabana Bano (2009) - that Muslim ladies might not be deprived of the benefit of Section 125.

In Shah Bano case, the SC in 1985 had stated, A common civil code will assist the cause of national integration by removing diverse loyalties to law which have contrasting ideologies.

In the Sarla Mudgal case, the SC in 1995 stated, Where more than 80% of citizens have currently been brought under codified individual law, there is no reason whatsoever to keep in abeyance, any longer, the introduction of the UCC for all residents in India.

In John Vallamattom case (2003 ), the Supreme Court highlighted the desirability of achieving the objective set by Article 44 of the Constitution.