Gujarat UCC Committee Challenged in High Court: Order Reserved

Ahmedabad, Gujarat – The contentious issue of the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in Gujarat took a critical turn today as the High Court concluded hearings on a writ petition challenging the state government’s committee formed for its implementation. After intense arguments from both sides, Justice Niral Mehta has reserved the matter for order, leaving the fate of the committee hanging in the balance and reigniting debates over its inclusivity and impartiality.

The petition, filed by Surat resident Abdul Vahab Mohammad Shabbir Sopariwala, launches a direct assault on the composition of the committee constituted by the Gujarat government on February 4, 2025. Advocate Zameer Shaikh, representing the petitioner, delivered a hard-hitting argument, asserting that the committee conspicuously lacks representatives from any minority community. “How can a committee tasked with such a fundamental and sensitive reform, affecting all citizens, be deemed truly representative when it entirely excludes voices from minority communities?” questioned Shaikh during his submission, emphasizing the perceived imbalance.

Further undermining the committee’s credibility, the petitioner’s counsel highlighted that some of its members possess discernible political backgrounds and are not recognized experts in the pertinent legal or social fields. The committee is chaired by retired Supreme Court Judge Rajna Desai, with other members including R.C. Kodekar, former South Gujarat University Vice-Chancellor Dahesh Thakar, Geeta Shroff, and retired IAS officer C.L. Meena. Shaikh drew parallels with historical committees like the Swaminathan and Krishnakumar panels, arguing that those bodies upheld principles of equality and featured a diverse array of genuine experts, a standard he claims is notably absent in the current UCC committee.

“The very essence of a uniform code demands a consultative and inclusive approach. A committee that appears to be hand-picked without adequate representation or genuine expertise risks alienating significant sections of society and failing to build consensus,” a legal expert commented following the hearing, preferring anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter.

Defending the state government’s stance, Advocate General Kamal Trivedi, along with government counsels Shri G.H. Virk, Smt. Dhariti Pancholi, and Shri Nikunj Kanara, presented their arguments. While the specifics of their defense were not immediately detailed, it is expected they emphasized the government’s prerogative to form such committees and the qualifications of the appointed members.

With arguments now complete from both parties, the High Court’s decision will be keenly watched. The order reserved by Justice Niral Mehta will not only determine the legitimacy of the current UCC committee but also set a crucial precedent for future legislative reforms in the state, particularly those with wide-ranging societal implications.