UNIFORM CIVIL CODE (UCC)

UNIFORM CIVIL CODE (UCC)



Here are my views about the Uniform Civil Code as gleaned from recent pronouncements:


1--The Uniform Civil Code is not a figment of any individual’s imagination. It is part of the constitution of India. Article 44 of the Constitution says, "The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India."

2—The background of the UCC is given by the Legal Correspondent of TOI as follows:

“Just imagine the scenario in 1955. The nation had been independent for just eight years. Parliament functioned for five years. The Kashmir problem was already giving a headache to the first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. There was so much to do for the country after nearly 300 years of colonial rule. He had his hands full.

Yet, he thought of attempting codification of Hindu rituals and customs as part of his reformist vision. The process had already begun in the Constituent Assembly. A select committee had been formed to draft a new Hindu Code to systematize social practices. The orthodox elements violently opposed this and recommendations of the committee could not be made into a law.

But Nehru was convinced about it and brought in the Hindu Code Bill in 1955, which gave birth to a host of legislations including Hindu Marriage Act, 1956. When the debate was raging on the Hindu Code Bill in Parliament in May 1955, a valid question was raised by many members including J B Kripalani, that is why only codify Hindu rituals and customs and not those of Muslims?

The response from Nehru and his law minister was that Muslims were not ready for reforms. Ridiculing this argument, Kripalani had said, "It is not the (Hindu) Mahasabhites who alone are communal; it is the government also that is communal, whatever it may say. It is passing a communal measure. I charge you with communalism because you are bringing forward a law about monogamy only for Hindu community. Take it from me that the Muslim community is prepared to have it but you are not brave enough to do it. It is not the Hindu voice that is raised against the Prime Minister of Pakistan for having married a second wife. If you want to have (provision of divorce) for Hindu community, have it; but have it for the Catholic community also."

Poignant words, weren’t they? He accused the Prime Minister of lacking in courage to bring in reforms by codifying the Muslim law.

Exactly 50 years later, the Supreme Court delivered the Shah Bano judgment, applying the secular provision of Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code to rule that Muslim women could not be allowed to be rendered destitute by denial of maintenance by their husbands citing the customary laws of the community.

Another PM, Rajiv Gandhi, rushed to enact Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. But it turned out to be an overt act to show that the government did not have courage to initiate reforms in Muslim personal law and it would not allow even the apex court to interfere with it.”

---“IS GOVT READY FOR UNIFORM CIVIL CODE AFTER 63 YRS?
16 Aug, 2010 0131hrs IST TNN [ Dhananjay Mahapatra ]
http://m.timesofindia.com/PDATOI/articleshow/6316723.cms


3--Hindus have allowed themselves to be brainwashed so much that self- flagellation has become the favourite pastime of a category of people often referred to as PSI (Pseudo-Secular Intelligentsia), a term that seems to have been coined by Sh. L K Advani, former Deputy Prime Minister of India. Any mention of UCC prompts these PSIs to question the sanity and neutrality of the mentioner. It may be a sobering thought to realise that Mahommedali Currim Chagla ( M.C.Chagla), a judge of the Supreme Court and the International Court of Justice, a cabinet minister in Nehru’s government, a former ambassador to the US and a former Indian High Commissioner to UK, a Shia Muslim himself, has been described as “a great champion of the Uniform Civil Code for Muslims” [“A titan among nationalists - II “ by V SUNDARAM”

http://newstodaynet.com/2006sud/06aug/3108ss1.htm


4—Since some people are allergic to UCC, I will dwell here mainly on what the SC has said about the UCC over a period of time:


1985--In Shah Bano case, the SC said in 1985, "A common civil code will help the cause of national integration by removing disparate loyalties to law which have conflicting ideologies."

[While upholding the Muslim wife's right to the protection of the general law,
justice YV Chandrachud stated in passing that it was high time that the
govt implemented the UCC. But Muslims, by and large, resisted being brought
under the purview of the beneral law, arguing that the only compensation to
be paid was during the iddat (a brief period following the separation). Under
Rajiv Gandhi, their demand was enshrined in a statute - the controversial Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986]


1995--In Sarla Mudgal case, the SC said in 1995, "Where more than 80% of citizens have already been brought under codified personal law, there is no justification whatsoever to keep in abeyance, any more, the introduction of uniform civil code for all citizens in India."

The SC requested the prime minister to "have a fresh look at Article 44" and
directed the Centre to file an affidavit by August 1996, indicating the steps taken and efforts made by the govt towards securing a UCC. It said the govt should ask the Law Commission to draft a comprehensive legislation in consultation with the Minorities Commission, incorporating the "present-day concept of human rights for women".


[Sarla Mudgil v. UOI, DATE OF JUDGMENT10/05/1995, BENCH:Justice Kuldip Singh,Justice R.M. Sahai; CITATION: 1995 AIR 1531 1995 SCC (3) 635 JT 1995 (4) 331 1995 SCALE (3)286]
http://mynation.net/docs/files/2009/06/1.txt



2001—SC emhasised the need for UCC in Danial Latifi case.

2003--Yet again in 2003, in John Vallamattom case, the SC highlighted the desirability of achieving the goal set by Article 44 of the Constitution. But the same Nehruvian argument continues, the Muslim community is not ready.

2007—SC held in Iqbal Bano case that Muslim women could not be deprived of the benefit of Section 125 of CrPC.

2009—SC reaffirmed the above view in Shabana Bano case on December 4, 2009 that, "Even if a Muslim woman has been divorced, she would be entitled to claim maintenance from her husband under section 125 CrPC after the expiry of the period of iddat as long as she does not marry."

2011--The latest observations of the Supreme Court’s regarding UCC are as follows:

http://www.haindavakeralam.com/HKPage.aspx?PageID=13244&SKIN=B

“Don’t take tolerant Hindus for granted, SC tells Centre
09/02/2011 00:27:23 Abraham Thomas | New Delhi - Daily Pioneer

With only Hindu personal laws being codified to date, the Supreme Court on Tuesday doubted the “secular” commitment of the Centre for failing to codify other personal laws as well.

Drawing a possible link to explain, a Bench of Justices Dalveer Bhandari and AK Ganguly went to the extent of suggesting, “The Hindu community has been tolerant to these statutory interventions from time to time. But it has not happened for others.” The Bench added, “It appears to be lack of secular commitment (on part of the Centre) as it (codification) has not happened for others.”

The observations formed part of a PIL filed by National Commission of Women where the dichotomy between various Central legislations on the marriageable age of women is under review.

The damning indictment of the Centre, which failed to undertake the task of drawing a Uniform Civil Code, came in context of arguments advanced by Central Government counsel Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Indira Jaising, who pointed out various loopholes in the Hindu Marriage Act.”


M C Gupta
9 February 2011