Yes it should be done away with and there is precedence for this.
The appointment of a non-Brahmin to perform pujas in a Temple in Kerala was challenged on the ground that the appointment offended and not only violated a long-followed mandatory custom and usage of having only Malayala Brahmins for such jobs but that it denied the right of the worshippers to practise and profess their religion in accordance with its tenets and manage their religious affairs as secured under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court rejected the claim and upheld the appointment saying:
“Any custom or usage, irrespective of even any proof of their existence in pre-constitutional days, cannot be countenanced as a source of law to claim any rights when it is found to violate human rights, dignity, social equality and the specific mandate of the Constitution and law made by Parliament”.
People can have their wedding ceremony any which way they want, practices however the registration can only be done one way at the registrar's office. Having 4 wives and 20 kids, just because some xyz religon allowed it some 1300 years or so ago doesn't mean it should be legal today. Similarly many archaic Hindu rituals and practices have ben outlawed, without any fuss. So why do these hurr durr champions of secularism feel the need to pussy foot around the issue of uniform civil code, do these people have the right to call themselves secular?