New Delhi, March 11 -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday indicated that long-standing concerns over gender discrimination in personal laws may ultimately require legislative action in the form of a Uniform Civil Code (UCC), as it heard a petition challenging Muslim inheritance rules as discriminatory against women. During the hearing, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and justices R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi repeatedly pointed to the constitutional directive for a UCC, suggesting that structural reforms in personal laws across communities may be better addressed through legislation rather than judicial intervention. "The answer is a Uniform Civil Code," observed the bench while hearing submissions from advocate Prashant Bhushan, who appeared for the petitioners. The court was considering a writ petition, moved by advocate Poulomi Pavini Shukla and Nyaya Naari Foundation, challenging provisions of Muslim personal law relating to inheritance, which the petitioners argued deny Muslim women equal rights compared to men. At the outset, the bench questioned whether courts could examine the constitutionality of practices rooted in personal law. It referred to the Narasu Appa Mali judgment of the Bombay High Court, which held that uncodified personal laws are not subject to constitutional scrutiny. The bench also raised concerns about the consequences of striking down such provisions without an alternative legal framework in place. If the court were to invalidate inheritance rules flowing from the Shariat law, it asked, would that not create a legal vacuum for Muslim women, given the absence of a comprehensive statutory framework governing Muslim inheritance? "In our over-anxiety for reforms, we may end up depriving them," said the bench, cautioning that judicial intervention could inadvertently place women in a worse position than the one they currently occupy. Bhushan responded that in such a scenario the Indian Succession Act could apply and argued that the court could declare that Muslim women are entitled to equal inheritance rights. He relied on the Supreme Court's 2017 Shayara Bano judgment, which struck down the practice of instant triple talaq, to contend that discriminatory personal law practices could be tested against constitutional guarantees. According to Bhushan, inheritance is a matter of civil rights and cannot be shielded under Article 25, which protects freedom of religion. Bhushan argued that such matters cannot be treated as essential religious practices. However, the bench repeatedly returned to the broader constitutional scheme, observing that reforms cutting across communities may be better addressed through Parliament's legislative powers. Referring to Article 44 of the Constitution -- a Directive Principle of State Policy that urges the State to secure a Uniform Civil Code for citizens, the bench highlighted that courts have historically emphasised the importance of such reform but have refrained from issuing binding directions to the government. The court also indicated that judicial scrutiny may be more appropriate in petitions directly filed by Muslim women seeking relief from discriminatory provisions under the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937. The hearing comes amid renewed debate on the Uniform Civil Code in India. A Uniform Civil Code refers to a common set of laws governing personal matters such as marriage, divorce, adoption, inheritance and succession, applicable to all citizens regardless of religion. In several landmark decisions, including Shah Bano (1985) and Sarla Mudgal (1995), the Supreme Court highlighted the need for greater uniformity in personal laws, while also clarifying in later rulings that courts cannot compel the government to enact a UCC. More recently, Uttarakhand became the first state to implement a Uniform Civil Code, introducing a framework that governs marriage, divorce and live-in relationships across communities....