'No Prejudice To Any Class': Gujarat High Court Rejects Challenge To State UCC Panel Over Lack Of Minority Representation

The Gujarat High Court rejected a plea challenging the constitution of a committee formed to consider necessity of Uniform Civil Code for the State, observing that the panel was constituted by an executive order and in absence of any statutory provision, the selection of the members is in the absolute domain of the State.

The court further said that by merely constituting a committee it cannot be said that prejudice is caused to any class of people when it is always open for them to make a representation espousing their views on the UCC to the Committee. 

The petitioner sought a direction to the state government to reconstitute the Committee for UCC with the fresh members who have the knowledge and experience over the subject and a further direction to the respondent to "adopt a consultative process involving all religious and cultural communities" before any move to the Uniform Civil Code. 

The petitioner's counsel argued that Committee was formed to see the necessity of implementation of UCC, which would cover many personal laws–Hindu Law, Muslim Law, etc. and would touch many minorities–such as Muslim, Christian, Parsi, Sikh, etc. It was argued that there was no representation of any minority communities in the Committee.

Justice Niral R Mehta in his order while considering the invocation of power under Article 226 of the Constitution observed:

"Keeping in mind the aforesaid basic concept, if the facts of the present case are considered, admittedly, it appears that constitution of Committee is not by way of any provisions of statute. The said Committee is not having any character of statutory in nature. As a matter of fact, the constitution of the said Committee is purely an administrative decision. Thus, in absence of any statutory provisions, the authority cannot be expected and / or directed to act in a particular manner...when the constitution of Committee is not back by any statutory force, in that event, selection of members of the Committee cannot be subjected to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court, by exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot direct the State authorities to select members in a particular manner. Any direction and / or order, in that regard, would be said to be unjustified and unwarranted interference in a purely administrative affairs of the State authorities, and thereby, this Court would not like to go in the area, which is absolutely within the domain of the State Government on its administrative side"

The court further observed that Article 162 of the Constitution of India permits the State Government to take administrative decisions and so there cannot be any "judicial review of purely administrative decisions" taken under Article 162 by State authorities.

The court further observed:

"By constituting a Committee, it cannot be said that prejudice is caused to any class of people when more particularly it is always open for any class of people to make representation espousing their views on the Uniform Civil Code to the Committee so constituted. Under the circumstances, I see no good reason to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in a realm of administrative decisions taken under Article 162 of the Constitution of India by the State of Gujarat...this Court is of the firm opinion that once the Committee has been constituted purely by executive order under Article 162 of the Constitution of India, in absence of any statutory provisions to the contrary, selection of particular members for constitution of Committee would be within the absolute domain of the State Government and thereby, it is perfectly justified for the State authorities to select the members of the Committee and for which, Writ of Mandamus cannot be issued".

The order notes that the Chief Minister Bhupendrabhai Patel had on February 4 in a press conference announced the constitution of a Committee consisting of five members-retired Supreme Court judge Justice Ranjana Desai, retired IAS officer C. L. Meena, Advocate R. C. Kodekar, Ex-Vice Chancellor of Veer Narmad South Gujarat University Dakshesh Thakar, and Social Worker Gitaben Shroff "with a view to consider whether a Uniform Civil Code is necessary for the citizens of the State".

This Committee was to submit its report within 45 days and this period had been extended from time to time. Aggrieved by the constitution of the committee the petitioner approached the high court under Article 226 petition.

The advocate general appearing for the State, argued that petitioner had not challenged the State Government's power to constitute the Committee under Article 162 of the Constitution of India, and thus the petitioner cannot challenge the selection of members of the Committee. 

It was argued that constitution of Committee under Article 162 of the Constitution of India is purely an administrative action and has nothing to do with any statutory duty of the State Government.

It was argued that there is no legal requirement prescribed by any statute for and how such Committee can be constituted; constitution of Committee by the State is not a statutory duty and so cannot be said that the Committee constituted by the State is in breach of any statutory legal duties.

Case title: ABDUL VAHAB MOHAMMED SHABBIR SOPARIWALA v/s STATE OF GUJARAT

Counsel for petitioner: Advocate Zamir Z Shaikh

Counsel for State: Advocate General Kamal Trivedi, Government Pleader GH Virk, AGP Dharitri Pancholi and AGP Vinay Vishen

Click Here To Read/Download Order 

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 118