Uniform Civil Code ( UCC )
By Justice Katju
I was motivated to write this article by seeing a video show of a recent discussion on the Uttrakhand UCC anchored by my friend Kapil Sibal, senior advocate, Supreme Court, MP, and former Union Minister, with 3 prominent women as panelists.
I agree that there are some flaws in the Uttrakhand UCC, like the provision requiring registration of live-in relationships ( which in my opinion is unconstitutional as it offends the right to privacy, which has been held by the Supreme Court in Justice KS Puttaswamy vs Union of India to be part of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution )
However, I was surprised that none of the panelists clearly said that they were generally in favour of a UCC. Only Kapil, though being critical of the Uttrakhand UCC, seemed to support UCC in general ( by referring to former Prime Minister Nehru’s view ), and Vrinda Grover, one of the panelists, said that from the 1970s the women’s movement supported UCC.
Many people and organizations, particularly Muslims, have criticized UCC, e.g. Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind, saying it is against the sharia ( the personal law of Muslims )
I am a strong supporter of UCC, and have said that there is an urgent need for one in India
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.hastakshepnews.com/2024/10/the-urgent-need-for-uniform-civil-code.html&ved=2ahUKEwi3nbaU0pGMAxV4JDQIHQ8HH-EQFnoECCcQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3lZx79MCmoSU8yf9YgvDgQI have said that Muslims should support UCC as it is beneficial to them, and they should not be misled by their reactionary clericshttps://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.coastaldigest.com/katju-kicks-debate-says-muslims-should-support-uniform-civil-code&ved=2ahUKEwj8m-_q0pGMAxVXAjQIHR3JHicQFnoECCQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2BLU3J7yj4QxuYTVcI0B5R
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DZj16Bhy1quE&ved=2ahUKEwiW4JLp05GMAxUhweYEHT8jBoEQtwJ6BAggEAE&usg=AOvVaw0yehg9E7jyNfU0rnb3-yrv
I have always condemned atrocities or oppression of Muslims, but in my opinion, Sharia (the Muslim personal law) has done great harm to Muslims by contributing to keeping them backward.
Law is a reflection of social relations in a society at a particular stage of its historical development. Hence, when society changes, the law too must change. How can a law made in the 7th century in Arabia be the law in the 21st century when society has totally changed in these 1400 years? Can we have Manusmriti for Hindus today? Can we have stoning a woman to death for adultery or chopping off a thief’s hands today? Is the discrimination against women, by granting daughters only half as much as sons, or requiring twice as many women witnesses as men, or granting the right of oral divorce to men but not to women, or the nefarious practice of nikah halala, supportable in modern times ? Sharia is a feudal, outdated law, and must be done away with, and replaced by a modern UCC.
I strongly support religious freedom, which is incorporated as a fundamental right of all citizens via Article 25 in India’s Constitution. But in my opinion, Sharia is not a core part of Islam, like saying Namaz, going to Masjids, observing Roza during Ramadan, celebrating Eid-ul-Fitr and Eid-ul-Adha, or going on Haj, and if these are sought to be abolished I will strongly oppose that.
To say that if Sharia is abolished Islam will be abolished is talking nonsense. The old, non-statutory Hindu law (which did not permit divorce to Hindus, and permitted polygamy) was almost entirely abolished by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (which permits divorce on certain grounds by a court decree, and provides for monogamy), the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (which grants inheritance to daughters of their deceased fathers’ property, which was not granted earlier), etc. But this did not abolish Hinduism. Hindus still go to temples, perform Puja, etc.
It may be noted that UCC does not forbid marriages according to religious rites. All that it requires is registration of such marriages, and this is a salutary step, as it avoids future disputes.
Article 44 of the Indian Constitution directed the state to enact UCC, and though this was not an enforceable provision (vide Article 37) yet it was regarded as fundamental in the governance of the country. Article 37 states: “The provisions contained in this Part shall not be enforceable by any court, but the principles therein laid down 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.”
Reactionary Muslim clerics (maulanas) and the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (which consists mostly of reactionary Muslim clerics) opposed the Shah Bano verdict of the Indian Supreme Court of 1985, which held that a Muslim husband must give maintenance to his divorced wife, as according to them this was opposed to the Sharia.
This was a progressive, humanitarian decision, for how could a divorced woman, many having children and without an income, survive without maintenance? All modern countries provide for it in some way. Yet the maulanas raised such a hue and cry over it that the then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, fearing loss of his Muslim vote bank, got it annulled by Parliament.
It is true that only the BJP wants UCC, and not the other parties. But that is because these so called ‘secular’ parties have an eye on the Muslim vote bank, not because they have any genuine regard for the welfare of Indian Muslims
It is time now that Indian Muslims get out of the clutches of the reactionary maulanas, and get modernised. That alone is the path to their prosperity. Sharia must be totally abolished, and a UCC will do that. It will help India get modernized
