The state “shall endeavor to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India,” according to Article 44 of Part IV of the Constitution. The framers of the Constitution intended the UCC to be a uniform body of laws that would replace the unique personal laws of each religion with regard to issues like marriage, divorce, adoption, and inheritance, even though there isn’t yet a draft or model document for it. The Directive Principles of State Policy, which are outlined in Part IV of the Constitution, are essential to the nation’s governance even though they are not enforceable or justiciable in a court of law.
In the Constituent Assembly, there was a lot of discussion about whether or not the UCC clause should be included as a fundamental right or guiding principle. The matter had to be decided by vote, and with a majority of 5:4, the sub-committee on fundamental rights, chaired by Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, decided that obtaining a UCC did not fall under the purview of fundamental rights.
Divergent opinions on the UCC were expressed by Assembly members. Additionally, some believed that India was too diverse a nation for the UCC. According to Bengali member Naziruddin Ahmad, some civil laws in all communities are “inseparably connected with religious beliefs and practices.” He believed that the UCC would violate Article 19 of the draft Constitution (now Article 25), which protects the right to freedom of religion subject to public order, morality, and health. While he was not opposed to the idea of a uniform civil law, he argued that the time had not yet come, and that the process would have to be gradual and with the consent of the affected communities.
Member K.M. Munshi, on the other hand, rejected the notion that a UCC would violate religious freedom, pointing out that the Constitution allows the government to pass laws governing secular activities related to religious practices if they are intended to promote social reform. He advocated for the UCC, citing benefits such as promoting national unity and women’s equality. He claimed that if personal laws of inheritance, succession, and so on were considered religious, many discriminatory practices of Hindu personal law against women could not be eliminated.
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s attitude toward the UCC was more conflicted. He believed that, while desirable, the UCC should remain “purely voluntary” in its early stages. In his words, the Article “merely” suggested that the state make an effort to obtain a UCC, meaning it would not mandate that all citizens adhere to it. Ultimately, the amendments to shield personal laws from the UCC were turned down.
What has the Supreme Court said regarding the UCC?
The Supreme Court has called for the implementation of the UCC in several judgments. When determining whether to give precedence to the CrPc or the Muslim personal law in its Mohd. Ahmed Khan vs. Shah Bano Begum judgment of 1985, the apex court called for the implementation of the UCC. In that case, a divorced Muslim woman demanded maintenance from her former husband.
In the 1995 Sarla Mudgal ruling and the Paulo Coutinho v. Maria Luiza Valentina Pereira case (2019), the Court also urged the government to put the UCC into effect.
What has the Law Commission said?
In 2016, the Modi government asked the Law Commission of India to determine how to create a code in the face of “thousands of personal laws” in the country. The Law Commission issued a 185-page consultation paper on family law reform in 2018. According to the paper, a unified nation does not necessarily require “uniformity,” and secularism cannot contradict the country’s plurality. The term “secularism” had meaning only if it guaranteed the expression of any kind of difference, according to the Commission.
While the report stated that a UCC “is neither necessary nor desirable at this time,” it did recommend that discriminatory practices, prejudices, and stereotypes within a particular religion, as well as its personal laws, be studied and amended. The Commission proposed certain measures in marriage and divorce that should be universally accepted in all religions’ personal laws. Some of these changes include raising the marriageable age for boys and girls to 18 years old so that they can marry as equals, making adultery a grounds for divorce for both men and women, and simplifying the divorce process. It also demanded that the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) cease to exist as a tax-exempt entity.
Conclusion
The execution and applicability of the UCC are challenging due to India’s complex diversity. But if we want to live in a society that is truly harmonious and united, where everyone is treated equally, we must accept and enforce UCC.
