The Uniform Civil Code- a uniform legal framework that would apply to all citizens of India irrespective of their religion, caste, community, and sex-has created turmoil in India since its mention during the Constituent Assembly debates. The idea behind UCC is to promote gender equality and justice by ensuring that all citizens are governed by the same set of laws in the spheres of Marriage, Adoption, Divorce, and Inheritance.
The context of the Uniform Civil Code traces its roots to the Constitution of India, Article 44 which states that the state shall endeavor to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India. The Constitution makers had a vision of a progressive and modern India wherein there is no necessary relation between the religion they practice and the personal laws on which they will be governed.
The members of the Constituent Assembly wanted to implement UCC just after independence. However, the incessant events after India’s independence, the turmoil caused by partition, and the uneasy nature of princely states did not allow for UCC. In his Constituent Assembly debate in 1948, Dr B.R. Ambedkar explained that UCC has to be voluntary for each state, hence its mention in the Directive Principles of State Policy. The aim as mentioned was to modernize religions by themselves so that each state could voluntarily implement UCC, but as the trends show this had failed. So, the need for a political push seemed necessary.
The contemporary issue with UCC as stated by former Supreme Court Judge Hon. Deepak Gupta, is “the impression given today is that Muslim Law is not good and everything with Hindu Law is good. This is not true.” The nature of UCC has been constructivized in such a manner that it has been used merely to acquire votes, imposing a majoritarian religious law rather than proposing a uniform personal law-which will only lead to a disruption in the diversity of a nation like India. Moreover, there is also a lack of consensus regarding this issue as the political circles maintain their status quo to escape the risk of alienating a particular vote-bank caste.
Recently, the Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code made headlines as it undermined the constitutional provisions of liberty and privacy by penalizing live-in relationships hampering individual autonomy. Now the problem with this bill is that it exempted the Scheduled tribes which make up 3% of Uttarakhand's overall population. Furthermore, the bill extends itself to exempt from tempering with customs of any religion, customs or sect, Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), and the LGBTQ community. The uprising of debates was caused by the degree of prohibited relationships and the greater autonomy given to registrars in the case of live-in relationships.
The positive attributes of this bill include the compulsion of registration of marriages, evoking polygamy or bigamy, and divorce proceedings same for men and women both. Equal inheritance rights for all children even after death without a will. The main hit was the removal of the concept of ‘illegitimate children’ in case of a child outside of marriage. The child support has to be paid now by both parties in case of separation.
The downside of the bill includes the greater autonomy given to the registrar in case of live-in relationships which seems regressive. The bill does not fully focus on the laws that suppress women or other deprived classes. The ruling circles’ propaganda indirectly turned a progressive civil code into a radical regressive bill that goes against the fundamental rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution, particularly Article 25 (Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion) and Article 26 (Freedom to manage religious affairs).
It aims for a Hinduized code in a heterogeneous country which doesn't seem correct. It is also important to note that even within the Hindus there isn’t uniformity within marriage laws. Also, the ideals of the Constitution “unity in diversity” seem compromised with the uniformity in personal laws.
What remains now is to build consensus regarding the UCC bill with a vision to make the country’s religious dynamics progressive, focusing on laws that suppress a particular community rather than imposing laws that were meant to be applied voluntarily by a state.
The context of the Uniform Civil Code traces its roots to the Constitution of India, Article 44 which states that the state shall endeavor to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India. The Constitution makers had a vision of a progressive and modern India wherein there is no necessary relation between the religion they practice and the personal laws on which they will be governed.
The members of the Constituent Assembly wanted to implement UCC just after independence. However, the incessant events after India’s independence, the turmoil caused by partition, and the uneasy nature of princely states did not allow for UCC. In his Constituent Assembly debate in 1948, Dr B.R. Ambedkar explained that UCC has to be voluntary for each state, hence its mention in the Directive Principles of State Policy. The aim as mentioned was to modernize religions by themselves so that each state could voluntarily implement UCC, but as the trends show this had failed. So, the need for a political push seemed necessary.
The contemporary issue with UCC as stated by former Supreme Court Judge Hon. Deepak Gupta, is “the impression given today is that Muslim Law is not good and everything with Hindu Law is good. This is not true.” The nature of UCC has been constructivized in such a manner that it has been used merely to acquire votes, imposing a majoritarian religious law rather than proposing a uniform personal law-which will only lead to a disruption in the diversity of a nation like India. Moreover, there is also a lack of consensus regarding this issue as the political circles maintain their status quo to escape the risk of alienating a particular vote-bank caste.
Recently, the Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code made headlines as it undermined the constitutional provisions of liberty and privacy by penalizing live-in relationships hampering individual autonomy. Now the problem with this bill is that it exempted the Scheduled tribes which make up 3% of Uttarakhand's overall population. Furthermore, the bill extends itself to exempt from tempering with customs of any religion, customs or sect, Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), and the LGBTQ community. The uprising of debates was caused by the degree of prohibited relationships and the greater autonomy given to registrars in the case of live-in relationships.
The positive attributes of this bill include the compulsion of registration of marriages, evoking polygamy or bigamy, and divorce proceedings same for men and women both. Equal inheritance rights for all children even after death without a will. The main hit was the removal of the concept of ‘illegitimate children’ in case of a child outside of marriage. The child support has to be paid now by both parties in case of separation.
The downside of the bill includes the greater autonomy given to the registrar in case of live-in relationships which seems regressive. The bill does not fully focus on the laws that suppress women or other deprived classes. The ruling circles’ propaganda indirectly turned a progressive civil code into a radical regressive bill that goes against the fundamental rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution, particularly Article 25 (Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion) and Article 26 (Freedom to manage religious affairs).
It aims for a Hinduized code in a heterogeneous country which doesn't seem correct. It is also important to note that even within the Hindus there isn’t uniformity within marriage laws. Also, the ideals of the Constitution “unity in diversity” seem compromised with the uniformity in personal laws.
What remains now is to build consensus regarding the UCC bill with a vision to make the country’s religious dynamics progressive, focusing on laws that suppress a particular community rather than imposing laws that were meant to be applied voluntarily by a state.