India’s debate on a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) centres on balancing religious freedom with legal equality. Articles 25–26 protect religious practices, while Article 44 encourages uniform civil laws. Personal laws govern marriage, inheritance, and more, but can conflict with equality under Article 14, especially regarding gender rights. Supporters say a UCC promotes gender justice, legal uniformity, and secularism. Opponents fear erosion of religious autonomy and cultural diversity. Courts back reform but urge sensitivity and gradual change. Scholars recommend an inclusive, phased approach that respects pluralism while advancing equality, reflecting India’s unique constitutional and social fabric.
The Madras High Court condemned the seven-year closure of the Arulmighu Mariamman Temple in Karur, calling it a “dereliction of constitutional duty.” The temple had been shut due to caste tensions, denying Scheduled Caste devotees access. Justice B. Pugalendhi ruled that citing law and order concerns cannot justify violating Articles 14 and 25, which guarantee equality and religious freedom. The court criticized police and district officials for failing to find constitutional solutions and directed the HR&CE Department to act under Section 64 to ensure fair access. It warned that caste-based denial of entry would invite strict legal action.
The Karnataka High Court quashed an FIR against three men accused of distributing Islamic pamphlets near a temple, ruling that it did not amount to a criminal offence. Justice Venkatesh Naik T held that the complainant had no legal standing under Section 4 of the state’s anti-conversion law and that no elements of forced or fraudulent conversion under Section 3 were met. The court also found no evidence of incitement under BNS provisions. It reaffirmed Article 25 rights, stating that peacefully sharing religious views is protected, provided there is no unlawful conversion attempt.
