The Supreme Court on Friday asked the Law Commission of India to examine a representation by a Buddhist organisation claiming that the application of Hindu personal laws to Buddhists violates their fundamental rights and distinct cultural practices.
A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, sitting with Justice Joymalya Bagchi, was hearing a petition filed by the Buddhist Personal Law Action Committee. The group argued that Buddhists form a separate religious community and should not be governed by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, or the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.
Under Article 25 of the Constitution, Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs are included within the expression Hindu for the purpose of these personal laws. The petitioner submitted that this legal framework undermines their right to freely practise their faith.
Before passing directions, the Chief Justice asked the petitioner to clarify the nature of the relief they wanted.
“You want a mandamus to amend the Constitution and personal laws? Where have you approached the government authority? You want us to consider Kesavananda Bharati now and amend the basic structure also?” Justice Kant remarked.
Counsel for the organisation said Buddhists had made several representations over the years without any response.
The bench observed that the Law Commission is the appropriate expert body to examine such questions of reform and noted that it is usually headed by a former Supreme Court judge or a Chief Justice of a High Court.
“They will welcome a person like you and get assistance. The Law Commission can make recommendations for such constitutional amendments,” the CJI said.
The court also referred to a December 2024 communication from the Ministry of Law and Justice stating that the 21st Law Commission is already examining related issues in its ongoing deliberations on the Uniform Civil Code and has invited views from stakeholders.
Emphasising that the Supreme Court cannot issue a mandamus directing Parliament to amend or delete statutory provisions, the bench said the petitioner’s plea should be treated as a detailed representation for the Commission’s consideration.
“In order to assist the Law Commission for an expeditious conclusion of pending issues, we deem it appropriate to direct that the plea be served as a representation to the Law Commission of India,” the court recorded.
The registry has been asked to forward the complete paper-book to the Commission. The bench also said the Law Commission may allow a representative of the petitioner organisation to participate and “render quality assurance” while formulating its view.
