SC asks Law commission to examine representation against applicability of Hindu laws to Buddhists

The Supreme Court on Friday asked the Law Commission to examine a petition/representation of a Buddhist group questioning the applicability of personal Hindu laws to Buddhists as the organisation contended it went against their fundamental rights, particularly the right to freedom to practise religion.

Article 25 of the Constitution includes Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs within the definition of "Hindu" for the purposes of these laws. An explanation to Article 25 says, “…Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly.”

Buddhists are governed by the same personal laws as Hindus, as specified by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, and the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.

As the counsel for petitioner Buddhist Personal Law Action Committee urged a Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi to issue a direction to the effect that Buddhists will not be governed by Hindu personal laws, the Bench wondered if it can amend the Constitution.

The petitioner also demanded separate personal laws for the Buddhist community.

“You want a mandamus to amend the Constitution and personal laws? Where have you approached the government authority? You want us to reconsider Kesavananda Bharati (case verdict) now and amend the basic structure also,” Justice Kant asked.

Contending that Buddhists constituted a distinct community, the counsel submitted that representations had been made to the government several times.

However, the Bench asked the Law Commission to treat the petition as a representation. "The court is not in a position to direct an amendment to the constitution, but the Law Commission has to make recommendations to Parliament. We can request the Law Commission to give you an audience," CJI Kant told the petitioner.

Describing the Law Commission as a premier expert body, the Bench said it can take a holistic view and make recommendations accordingly.

“In order to assist the Law Commission for an expeditious conclusion of the pending issue, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition, by treating it as a representation of behalf of the petitioner to the Law Commission,” it said, directing the top court Registry to forward the complete set of the paper book (petition with accompanying documents) to the Law Commission for consideration.