In a brief but lively hearing this morning, the Supreme Court declined to directly intervene in a petition seeking a distinct personal law framework for India’s Buddhist community, instead forwarding the matter to the Law Commission of India. The bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant with Justice Joymalya Baghchi, noted that the court’s hands were tied when it came to directing constitutional changes, but the concerns raised were “worth a proper audience”.
Background
The case-filed by the Buddhist Personal Law Action Committee-highlighted that despite being recognised as a separate religion, Buddhists continue to be governed by Hindu personal law statutes such as the Hindu Marriage Act and Hindu Succession Act.
Read also: Assam High Court Flags Gaps in Police Recruitment Policy for Transgender Applicants, Seeks Clarity
The petitioners argued that their customs, marriage practices, guardianship norms, and inheritance traditions differ significantly from Hindu practices. “It is unfair that our community laws are still clubbed together,” the petitioner’s representative told the court, sounding visibly concerned about losing cultural identity.
Court’s Observations
The Chief Justice made it clear that while the judicial forum can examine rights violations, it cannot compel Parliament to draft or amend laws. “The court is not in the position to direct an amendment to the Constitution,” the bench observed. “But the Law Commission has the mandate to study and recommend. We can request them to give you an audience.”
Read also: Supreme Court Flags Serious Concerns Over Police Conduct in Madhya Pradesh Case, Seeks Affidavits
At one point, CJI Surya Kant referred to the earlier 21st Law Commission’s work on the Uniform Civil Code, noting that the issue of separate personal laws was already touched upon there. The bench said it would be more appropriate for an expert body to look at it thoroughly rather than the court rushing to craft a solution that has wide social implications.
Another judge added that involving the Law Commission would ensure “a holistic view instead of a piecemeal approach”, signalling that the matter required expert consultation rather than immediate judicial directions.
Read also: Supreme Court Clarifies Key Rules on Cheque Dishonour Jurisdiction After 2015 NI Act
Decision
The court ultimately disposed of the PIL, treating it as a representation and directing the Supreme Court Registry to forward the entire case file to the Law Commission. The bench also requested the Commission to invite the petitioners for a personal hearing “if it deems appropriate”, saying such interaction would “undoubtedly render quality assistance” before it finalises its view.
The order ends with the court stepping back, leaving it to the Law Commission to examine whether Buddhists should be granted an independent personal law code.
Case Title: Buddhist Personal Law Action Committee vs. Union of India & Others
Case No.: W.P.(C) 1138/2025
Case Type: Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
Decision Date: 28 November 2025
