• India
  • Jul 11

Explainer / Uniform Civil Code

The issue of framing a Uniform Civil Code will be placed for consideration before the 22nd Law Commission once it is constituted, the Delhi High Court was informed.

A Uniform Civil Code aims to replace personal laws based on the scriptures and customs of various religious communities, with a common set of rules governing every citizen of the country.

A bench of Chief Justice D.N. Patel and Justice C. Hari Shankar was told that on receiving a reference from the government, the issue was considered by the 21st Law Commission and it sought the views of various stakeholders and met several religious groups.

Central government standing counsel Ajay Digpaul, representing the Law Commission, further said that as per instructions, a consultation paper on the Reform of Family Law was released by the 21st Law Commission on the subject. He said the term of 21st Law Commission ended in August last year and the 22nd Law Commission is yet to be constituted.

Once it is set up, the issue of Uniform Civil Code will be placed before it for consideration.

Background

The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is an ongoing debate to replace personal laws based on the scriptures and customs of each major religious community in India with a common set of rules governing every citizen.

Article 44 of the Directive Principles in the Constitution says the “state shall endeavour to provide for its citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India”.

The objective of this endeavour is to address the discrimination against vulnerable groups and harmonise diverse cultural practices.

Critics say that the UCC will rob the nation of its diversity and violate the fundamental right to practise one’s religion enshrined in Article 25 of the Constitution.

The demand for a UCC was first put forward by female activists in the beginning of the 20th century, with the objective of women’s rights, equality and secularism.

Till Independence in 1947, a few law reforms were passed to improve the condition of women, especially Hindu widows. In 1956, Parliament passed the Hindu Code Bill. Though a demand for a Uniform Civil Code was made by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, his supporters and activists, they had to finally accept the compromise of it being added to the Directive Principles because of heavy opposition.

The UCC became a flashpoint in Indian politics in 1985 during the Shah Bano case. The Supreme Court had held that Bano, a Muslim woman, should get alimony from her former husband.

The case was considered a milestone as it was a step ahead of the general practice of deciding cases on the basis of interpretation of personal law and also dwelt on the need to implement the UCC.

In 1986, when Rajiv Gandhi was the PM, Parliament passed an Act titled The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, that nullified the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Shah Bano case.

The debate then focused on the Muslim Personal Law, which is partially based on the Sharia law, permitting unilateral divorce, polygamy and putting it among the legally applying the Sharia law.

Goa, an erstwhile Portuguese colony, is the only state in the country where the Uniform Civil Code is in operation. President Ram Nath Kovind had praised the UCC in Goa and said its implementation was reflective of the values of equality enshrined in the Constitution.

What supporters of UCC say?

They say a secular republic needs a common law for all citizens rather than differentiated rules based on religious practices. This was a key issue debated during the writing of the Constitution. The Indian Constitution was eventually stuck with a compromise solution.

The second is: gender justice. The rights of women in some communities are usually limited under religious law.

Many practices governed by religious tradition are at odds with the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Indian Constitution.

The stand taken by B.R. Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly debates has survived the years. Ambedkar had said a UCC is desirable but for the moment should remain voluntary.

What the critics say?

Secularism cannot counter the plurality common in the country. Besides, cultural diversity cannot be negotiated to the extent that our urge for uniformity itself becomes a reason for threat to the territorial integrity of the nation.

The term ‘secularism’ has meaning only if it assures the definition of any form of difference. This diversity, both religious and regional, should not get subsumed under the louder voice of the majority.

Notes