New Delhi: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Thursday said that Uniform Civil Code is not related to any particular religion and that it is a “constitutional ambition”, while issuing a notice on a plea challenging the application of Shariat law in inheritance matters.A bench comprising the CJI and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi were hearing the plea filed by petitioners Advocate Poulomi Pavani Shukla and NGO Nyaya Naari Foundation.Appearing for the petitioners, Advocate Prashant Bhushan said, “I have always maintained, and I have told my Muslim friends also that don’t oppose UCC. Many of them oppose the UCC because the fear is that in the name of a UCC, the Hindu civil code will be imposed on them. I have always said the civil laws should always be uniform for all across all religions.”“UCC is only a constitutional ambition. It has nothing to do with any religion in particular,” the CJI said.Justice Joymalya Bagchi then referred to existing laws such as the Special Marriage Act and the Juvenile Justice Act as steps that allow individuals to move outside personal laws in areas like marriage and adoption.“In fact if you look at the personal law of marriage, the Special Marriage Act is one of the steps towards uniformity in matrimony, that you have an option to opt out from your personal law and solemnise a marriage, as well as the rights of paternity and custody etc under the Special Marriage Act. And now also with the Juvenile Justice Act permitting adoption, you make inroads into the personal law domain,” Justice Bagchi said.“But these have been legislative exercises… will it be appropriate for the court to get into it? Freedom of religion is a part of the fundamental rights,” he added.Bhushan then argued that if a religious practice is inherently discriminatory then it has to be struck down, unless it is protected under Article 25. “…if a religious practice is inherently discriminatory or against equity, good conscience, public order, morality etc… even if it’s a religious practice, it has to be struck down. Because once the Constitution comes, it does not permit any practice to be inherently discriminatory unless Your Lordships elevates it to an essential religious practice protected under Article 25,” Bhushan said.Arguing that matters of inheritance or testamentary succession could not be considered essential religious practice, Bhushan said, “Saying women will get half or even less than half compared to their male counterparts is discriminatory. This is a civil case and not an essential religious practice under Article 25.”The bench while issuing the notice the plea with other similar petitions.