THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent advocacy for a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) has reignited the long-standing debate. The UCC seeks to establish a single set of civil laws applicable to all citizens, regardless of their religion, in matters such as marriage, inheritance, and adoption. While some view it as a step towards gender justice and social reform, others argue that it might undermine religious freedom and diverse cultural practices.
The origins of this debate can be traced back to the Constituent Assembly. B R Ambedkar and India’s first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru had backed the idea of a UCC, envisioning it as a means to eradicate inequities present in religious personal laws, particularly concerning gender justice. However, some members, like Naziruddin Ahmad, flagged the potential infringement on the right to freedom of religion guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution.
Notably, the Constitution included the UCC as a directive principle in Article 44. It states: The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.” Though directive principles are not legally enforceable, the Constitution says they are “nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws”.
The Supreme Court has also periodically weighed in on the matter. In the 1973 Kesavananda Bharati case, the court observed: “Desirable as it (UCC) is, the government has not been able to take any effective steps towards the realisation of this goal. Obviously, no court can compel the government to lay down a uniform civil code even though it is essentially desirable in the interest of the integrity and unity of the country.”
However, a social debate gained heat with the 1985 Shah Bano case, in which the apex court emphasised the need for implementing the UCC while deliberating on a Muslim woman’s right to alimony. Time and again, the Supreme Court has prodded governments on UCC.
In 2018, the 21st Law Commission opined that “formulation of a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is neither necessary nor desirable at this stage”.
Instead, it recommended, “all personal laws relating to matters of the family must first be codified to the greatest extent possible, and the inequalities that have crept into codified law should be remedied by amendment”.
However, last month the 22nd Law Commission sought the views of stakeholders and the public on UCC. It stated: “...bearing in mind the relevance and importance of the subject and also the various court orders on the subject, the 22nd Law Commission of India considered it expedient to deliberate afresh over the subject.”
By the time of the initial deadline of the consultation process on July 14, the commission had received over 46 lakh submissions. It has now extended the deadline to July 28.
The current debates surrounding the UCC reflect the complexities of India’s pluralistic society. Proponents argue that a unified legal framework would promote social harmony and gender equality, eradicating discrimination and injustice. They underscore that it will ensure equality for women.
On the other hand, some sections of society view personal laws as integral to preserving traditional customs and minority identities. They fear that imposing a uniform code may undermine the secular fabric of the nation and erode diverse cultural practices.
The lack of clarity on the proposed civil code adds to the uncertainty. As the debate continues, finding a balance between upholding constitutional principles of equality and safeguarding cultural diversity seems to be the challenge ahead.
'The intention matters'
B R Ambedkar was of the view that, while UCC is desirable, people should be voluntarily ready for it. That means it is not something to be thrust upon society. Moreover, the previous Law Commission (2018) opined that, as the world was moving in the direction of diversity, total uniformity was not desirable for democracy. Above all, the intention matters. Is the government arguing for UCC to attack a particular community or minorities? Is it trying to divide the country further? These are pertinent questions.
Sunil P Ilayidam, writer and professor
'Doubts in people's minds'
Most discussions surrounding UCC refer to Muslim women as if it will save women from this particular community. But we have seen what happened to the triple talaq law (in terms of effectiveness). UCC will affect every community there is, including tribals. And a government with a poor track record on communal harmony proposing a UCC generates doubts in people’s minds. That is why we are seeing a lot of objections. In my opinion, amending religious personal laws will be more effective in tackling gender inequalities.
Khadeeja Mumtaz, writer
'Uniform code is desirable, but should be truly uniform'
The 22nd Law Commission, unlike the ones before it, hasn’t submitted a draft on what it means by UCC. So that makes any public discussion a moot point because none of us has enough information. However, a uniform code is desirable, as it provides equal rights and protection to every citizen. What is important is it should be truly uniform.
N S Madhavan, writer
‘Religious codes highly discriminatory’
The need for UCC stems from the fact that existing religious codes are highly discriminatory. Every discriminatory aspect that affects a person’s individual rights has to be addressed in the new code. Also, though the right to marry also affects individual freedom, a case on equal rights to marry is before the SC. It could have come under UCC. Ideally, the decision should have been Parliament’s, as it is elected representatives who are the ‘lawmakers’.
Sreejith Panickar, social observer
‘UCC won’t take religious rights away’
A Uniform Civil Code is imperative for our country. It is the need of the hour. The rampant gender-based discrimination in our personal laws can be ironed out with UCC. What many don’t understand is that it won’t take religious rights away; it will only address discriminatory practices. There is confusion over some exceptions. It’s simple: the Constitution has granted special status to some states such as Nagaland and Mizoram.
While section 370 (in J&K) was a temporary provision, 371 is a special privilege. These populations, mainly protected tribal communities, may constitute around 5 per cent of our population. So UCC will apply to 95 per cent of the population; the rest can be integrated gradually. And if the problem is the lack of trust in the Centre, why don’t state governments implement it? A lot of people call for amending personal laws. Do that, end discrimination.
C Ravichandran, writer, professor
‘Amend personal laws’
There was a time when I supported UCC. I first heard the term during the famous Shah Bano case. However, the political situation has changed. There is no clarity about what the Union government is planning. Also, look at the triple talaq law being ineffective. While Muslim men are being vilified in society, few women actually find relief. I believe amending personal laws would be better. For instance, we have submitted a model bill to the Law Commission, Minority Commission and the Kerala government to amend the Succession Act. The state government has replied that it comes under Parliament’s preview.
V P Zuhra, social activist & founder of NISA
‘Can’t ignore the fears’
I believe a Uniform Civil Code is not applicable in a scenario where diverse communities of various beliefs coexist. Especially in the Indian context, there is a risk of the dominant ideology undermining others. UCC appears to be an appealing idea for many, but we can’t ignore the fears that it will be against minorities.
Niharika B P, postgraduate student (women’s studies), Kozhikode
‘Way to suppress minorities’
The UCC seems like a plank for the BJP to suppress the minorities. There are many communities with customs in India that are different from the status quo. For example, in some Adivasi communities, it is a norm for young couples under 18 to get married. Now, the husbands are thrown in jail under the POCSO Act. There are several such cases in Palakkad and Wayanad.
Allan Shuaib, law student, Kannur
‘Personal laws are blatantly anti-women’
I support it for the simple fact that the existing personal laws are blatantly anti-women and cuts at the root of gender equality. For example, with succession rights, as per Islamic personal law a male successor is entitled to 1/2 of his father’s property; however, the same is not applicable for a female successor. Another example would be bigamy. What is bizarre is that those who call themselves left/liberal have the audacity to defend misogyny under the pretext of “minority rights”.
Mukesh M, lawyer, Kochi
‘We’re a religious country’
A lot of cleaning up is required when it comes to religious laws. I believe the problem is that a lot of our laws are products of the colonial era. However, we must note that India is, by nature, not uniform. We are an overwhelmingly religious country. So it is only natural that UCC will be perceived as something that takes away certain privileges.
Sidhardh Sathish Kumar, psychology student, Kochi
‘Concept is progressive’
Changing the status quo will be a huge challenge. The UCC would legally place everyone under the umbrella category of ‘Indian’. This is progressive. Moreover, this would extend to women’s rights as well. Thirdly, the UCC will simplify legal processes immensely. On the other hand, if a law interferes with religious practices and beliefs, it is a very serious issue.
Karun Sanjaya, lawyer, Kochi
‘Needs larger consensus’
The UCC looks very good on paper. It would really simplify our legal framework. But, implementing it in a country like India is not going to be easy. It could create an atmosphere of religious animosity; we are simply too diverse. I believe UCC needs a larger consensus and sensitive drafting.
Kurian Adam Ayyampilly, culinary student, Kothamangalam
‘Not right to blindly oppose’
It is not right to blindly oppose UCC, as even the rough draft is not framed yet. A concept like UCC is certainly needed in our country if we need to claim to be a modern democracy.
However, religious sentiments should not be hurt. There should be uniform rights and laws for women and sections such as the LGBTQ+ community.
Sidharth Sunny, engineering student, T’Puram
‘Should be fair, Unbiased’
India definitely needs a UCC, but it should be a fair and unbiased one. Notions that it violates religious rights need to be dispelled through proper communication. There is already controversy over some tribes being exempted. So there will be doubts if the code targets only some specific religious identities.
Muhammed Asif Cherachen, LLB graduate and content creator, T’Puram
‘It’s oppression’
The Constitution states that this is a secular nation. UCC will mean the dominant community’s ideas being imposed on minorities. That’s oppression. The ways of all communities in our diverse land should be respected.
Asarmulla Karthiyayani, postgraduation student, T’Puram
‘Lack of trust in the ruling party’
UCC is a good concept, but I don’t think there is enough trust in the ruling party. Personal laws are convoluted and perhaps we should study the Goan model in depth. Analysing UCC a bit more, rather than outrightly rejecting it, would be a positive step.
Adarsh Krishna, college student, T’Puram
(With inputs from Arya U R)