Delhi HC Bats Most Strongly Pitching For Uniform Civil Code
It is not me but my very best friend Sageer Khan who will feel most proud to read this latest judgment by Delhi High Court batting most strongly pitching for uniform civil code as he himself despite being a Muslim was the most strongest proponent of uniform civil code I have ever met in my life in Sagar in MP in 1993! In my absence in 1993, he was weeping and saying to another Muslim named Haseer Khan that, “Why Hindus inspite of partition of India on baseless ground of religion are still most discriminated against according them step-motherly treatment treated as third rated citizens which they have so quietly accepted and Muslims given maximum freedom in world? Why monogamy imposed only on Hindus and related religions like Sikh, Jains and Buddhists which they enjoyed since time immemorial both polygamy and polyandry which is the prime reason why population of poor Muslims is increasing so rapidly? Why Hindus are never given any subsidy for Kailash or some other holy travel which only Muslims are given? Why management of only temples Centre takes over but never of mosques? Why there are mosques in Ayodhya, Kashi and Mathura which should never have a single mosque just like there is no temple in Mecca or Medina? Why Muslims willingly don’t donate the disputed sites to Hindus? I will never perform namaz in any disputed site or on roads thereby disturbing others.” I never ever even thought for a single second till then on what he said! He kept reiterating this even in front of me for two years till 1995!
It is definitely in the fitness of things that the Delhi High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Hamid Raza vs State of NCT of Delhi in Bail Appln. 2867/2025 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2025:DHC:8643 that was pronounced as recently as on 23.09.2025 has batted and pitched most strongly for enactment of a uniform civil code (UCC) that does not allow personal or customary laws to override national legislation. It is undoubtedly a national tragedy that BJP led by PM Narendra Modi have been repeatedly calling for enactment of common or uniform civil code so many times especially in rallies since last more than 11 years in power in Centre so seriously yet most inexplicably we see that this lip service has still not been translated into action which ostensibly makes for most depressing reading and cannot under any circumstances be ever justified on one pretext or the other! No denying it!
It also merits mentioning that the Bench was deciding a bail plea that had been filed by Hamid Raza who had been charged under IPC Section 376 (rape) and POCSO Act, for marrying a minor girl who was allegedly sexually assaulted by her stepfather and bore a child from that sexual abuse. The Bench detected that in this case, the prosecutrix was living with Raza before his arrest and the FIR was lodged by her stepfather in an effort to protect himself and conceal his own offences. The Bench found serious procedural lapses and violations in the accused’s arrest and detention. Therefore, the Delhi High Court granted regular bail to Raza who had been on interim bail since September 19, 2025. Very rightly so!
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Arun Monga while laying the background of this leading case puts forth in para 1 that, “Barely 14 years child herself, when the mother in her was born as the prosecutrix bore her first child, forced by the heinous sexual assault of her stepfather, her supposed protector turned predator. Later the infant was given in adoption. Shattered, she found solace and dignity when the applicant herein accepted her as his lawful bride. Both got married on 04.06.2024 under Islamic law. The couple is now also blessed with another child born from their wedlock. Stepfather is in judicial custody and facing trial in FIR No. 513/2024 dated 13.08.2024 under Sections 376(2)(n) of IPC & 6 of POCSO Act.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench then envisages in para 2 while elaborating further stating that, “In this backdrop, the stepfather of prosecutrix had earlier lodged an FIR against the applicant herein i.e. F.I.R. No. 390/2024 dated 15.06.2024 under Sections 363 registered at P.S. Khyala. Subsequently, Section 376 of IPC and 6 of POCSO Act was added in the chargesheet. The applicant was arrested on 06.10.2024, whereas the prosecutrix herself beseeches bail for him (her husband/the applicant). Applicant before this court, has thus been under incarceration for over 11 months, as an under-trial/accused. His alleged crime being that he married a minor. Husband’s age (24 years) is not disputed. Prosecutrix claims herself to be 20 years, whereas prosecution case is that even as on today she is a minor being 15-16 years old. More of it in greater details, at appropriate stage.”
While further elaborating on the facts of the case, the Bench then observes in para 4 stating aptly that, “During investigation, on 22.07.2025 the police official traced victim at Tis Hazari Court and her medical examination was conducted and she was sent to Nirmal Chaya. There after the victim informed about the sexual intercourse to CWC and then on receiving the said information the victim was again medically examined on 27.07.2024 and UPT test of the Victim came Positive and subsequently section 376 IPC and 6 POCSO were added in the present FIR.
4.1 On 01.08.2024 the minor’s statement under section 183 BNSS in connection to FIR No. 390/2024 (wherein the applicant/prosecutrix’s husband is arrayed as an accused) was recorded in which she has stated that she left her home on account of cruelty and sexual abuse by her step father which resulted in a girl child being born to her. On 14.08.2024, statement of the minor under section 183 BNSS was recorded in connection with FIR No. 513/2024, wherein the step father of the prosecutrix is arrayed as an accused. Therein, she stated that she has met and married the Applicant by her own free will and wishes to live with her husband. The Applicant was arrested on 06.10.2024 and has been in custody for over 11 months. Therein, she stated that she has met and married the Applicant by her own free will and wishes to live with her husband. The Applicant was arrested on 06.10.2024 and has been in custody for over 11 months.”
Do note, the Bench notes in para 26 that, “During the hearing of the bail application before the learned Trial Court also, the prosecutrix appeared through video conferencing and categorically stated that she has no objection if bail is granted to the applicant.”
Notably, it is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 27 that, “The record reveals that the applicant was arrested by Ct. Gurmeet and HC Anand at Jaipur on 04.10.2024 (though in chargesheet, it is 06.10.2024). However, the arrest was carried out without adherence to the established guidelines governing arrest. As per the statements of Ct. Gurmeet and HC Anand recorded under Section 180 BNSS, the applicant was produced before the learned Special Judge only on 07.10.2024. This was well beyond the statutory period of 24 hours mandated under Article 22(2) of the Constitution and Section 58 BNSS. Such delay is not only illegal and arbitrary but also renders the detention of the applicant unlawful.
27.1 Prima facie, it appears that the applicant was not even furnished with the written grounds of arrest either at the time of arrest or immediately thereafter, in violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 BNSS. The Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2024) 7 SCC 575, Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024) 8 SCC 254, and Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025) 5 SCC 799, has reiterated that failure to communicate written grounds of arrest vitiates the arrest and renders the detention unconstitutional.
27.2 Further, the mandatory provisions of Section 48 BNSS were violated inasmuch as no relative or friend of the applicant was informed of his arrest or place of detention. Even when the applicant requested before the learned Remand Judge that his family be informed, no such intimation was given. Neither was any entry of compliance made in police records. This constitutes a gross violation of the applicant’s fundamental rights.
27.3 The written grounds of arrest were not supplied to any relative or friend of the applicant either, as mandated under Section 48 BNSS.
27.4 It also emerges that the applicant was not informed of his rights under Section 48(1) BNSS, contrary to the mandate of Section 48(2), which obligates the police to apprise the arrestee of such rights upon arrival at the police station.”
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 29 that, “The applicant has no previous criminal antecedents and has otherwise maintained a clean record. There is nothing on record to suggest that he poses any threat to society, is likely to abscond, or would misuse the liberty if granted bail.”
It would be instructive to note that the Bench then hastens to add in para 30 noting that, “In light of the above factors taken cumulatively; the prosecutrix’s unequivocal support to the applicant; the illegalities surrounding his arrest; the prolonged delay in trial; the absence of any criminal antecedents of the applicant and the questionable bona fides of the FIR, I am of the considered opinion that further incarceration of the applicant pending trial is unwarranted.”
In addition, the Bench then directs and holds in para 31 that, “Order dated 19.09.2025 was earlier passed granting interim bail to the applicant on his furnishing personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- before the Jail Superintendent and in compliance thereof, he was ordered to be set free till next date of hearing and further requiring that the police personnel who had brought him in Court shall ensure his presence on the next date of hearing as well.”
For clarity, the Bench clarifies in para 32 observing that, “Accordingly, applicant is now ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to conditions to be imposed by the learned Trial Court. Till then, the order dated 19.09.2025 granting interim bail to the applicant shall remain in force.”
Quite pertinently, the Bench hastens to add in para 34 observing and stipulating that, “Having granted bail as above, I have consciously refrained from expressing any conclusive opinion on the legality of the marriage in question, though extensive arguments were advanced on this issue by Islamic experts and learned counsel for the applicant. However, upon thoughtful consideration thereof, the recurring conflict is clear i.e. under Islamic law, a minor girl attaining puberty may lawfully marry, but under Indian criminal law such a marriage renders the husband an offender under the BNS and/or POCSO or both. This raises a stark dilemma viz. should society be criminalized for adhering to long-standing personal laws? Is it not the time to move towards a Uniform Civil Code (UCC), ensuring a single framework where personal or customary law does not override national legislation?”
Finally and far most pertinently, the Bench then concludes by encapsulating in para 35 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “Before parting, it would be apposite to observe that this conflict warrants legislative clarity. The Legislature must decide whether to continue criminalizing entire communities or to promote peace and harmony through legal certainty. No doubt, opponents of UCC caution that uniformity risks eroding religious freedom guaranteed to every citizen as a fundamental right in the Constitution of India. However, such freedom cannot extend to practices that expose individuals to criminal liability. A pragmatic middle path could be to standardize core protections, such as prohibiting child marriages across board with penal consequences as they directly conflict with both BNS and POCSO. At the same time, less contentious personal matters may be allowed to evolve gradually within respective communities. The decision is best left to the wisdom of the law makers of the country. But, lasting solution must soon come from the Legislature / Parliament.”
In conclusion, we thus see that the Delhi High Court just like so many other High Courts earlier and so also the Supreme Court has time and again reiterated the dire need to implement uniform civil code in the country at the earliest. It definitely brooks no more delay any longer now as a lot of time has already flown under the bridge! It merits just no reiteration at all that not only child marriages will be eliminated by ushering in uniform civil code but so also population will be hugely controlled which is the crying need of the hour also as India is the most populated country in the world now beating China also.
(Sanjeev Sirohi is a Senior Advocate)
