Opponents of UCC argue that personal laws are derived from religious beliefs. They say it is wise not to disturb them, as this is likely to provoke great hostility and tension between different religious communities. As India was a secular country, it guaranteed its minorities the right to follow their own religion, culture and customs in accordance with articles 29 and 30. They argue that the implementation of the CDU violates these articles. Now let`s look at what happened in the JJ 2014 law. Is this a step towards UCC or not? The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act added the word “secularism” to the preamble. In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that secularism was a fundamental feature of the Constitution. Candidates preparing for UPSC 2022 can read the linked article to learn more about the upcoming ICD exam, its model, curriculum and more. Article 44 of the Constitution of India defines a uniform civil code. Article 44 states: “The State shall endeavour to ensure to citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.” This article is part of the Directive on the Principles of State Policy.
After reviewing all these cases, the question arises of the importance and necessity of UCC. The founding fathers of the Indian Republic had anticipated these problems and, although they did not eliminate the various personal laws introduced by the British when they codified the laws for India, they inserted an article into the chapter on the political principles of state policy, which constitutes Part IV of the Indian Constitution. Aspirants can get GS-II related items from the table below: Goa is the only state in India that has a unified civil code. The Goa Family Law is the series of civil laws, originally the Portuguese Civil Code, which was implemented after its annexation in 1961. [29] Sikhs and Buddhists have rejected the wording of Article 25, which refers to them as Hindus, with personal laws applied to them. [30] However, the same article also guarantees the right of members of the Sikh faith to wear a kirpan. [31] Authors` point of view: K.M. Munshi took a very rigid view in denying the majority`s claims to minorities.
He explains: “We want to separate religion from individual law, from what might be called social relations, or from the rights of the parties in matters of inheritance or inheritance. What do these things have to do with religion that I really don`t understand? [7] Shri Alladi Krishnaswamy Ayyar gives a much more realistic reason for seeking a UCC and bases his argument on the error of a strict and impermeable existence of communities. [8] B. R. Ambedkar was also a strong supporter of the UCC. He denied claims that a common civil code would be impossible in a large country like India. He explained that the only area where there is no uniform law is that of marriage and succession; All areas of civil law, such as transfer of ownership, contracts, the law on exchangeable instruments, the law on easements, the sale of goods, etc., were uniform in nature. [9] The Constituent Assembly`s debates on the CDU and the former Article 35 provoked many dissidents against it. The question of the domination of majority communities has been the main point of contention. Legal perspective on Article 44: Although the Supreme Court has assumed the role of social reformer in many other previous cases,[10] this is the case of Shah Bano[11] who usurped a landmark position in the history of debates on religion, secularism and women`s rights.
If we carefully circumvent the political drama that unfolded later, we could understand the problems facing the courts of our country because of the various conflicting personal laws. The SC stressed that steps will be taken to issue a UCC. In the case of Ms. Jorden Deingdeh v. S.S. Chopra,[12] the Court stated that the time had come for a complete reform of marriage law and the creation of a CDU for the country. In Shah Bano`s case, the court clarified that “a common civil code will help the cause of national integration by eliminating divergent loyalties to laws that have contradictory ideologies.” V. R., Justice Krishna Iyer, known for delivering a dazzling verdict in Bai Tahira v. Ali Hussain Fissalli Chowthia,[13] also has an Ambedkarian position on the Common Civil Code. Instead of being a majority enterprise, the common code is supposed to be a collection of the best in each system of personal laws. How can the Supreme Court declare a practice unconstitutional and humane for some women, but leave it constitutional for another part of women, if their personal laws allow it? In the case of State of Bombay v. Narasu Appa Mali,[14] the Supreme Court should consider such a situation.
In Sarla Mudgal v. UOI[15], the Supreme Court instructed the Prime Minister to take a fresh look at Article 44 of the Constitution, which obliges the State to establish a UCC, which the Court considers essential both for the oppressed and for the promotion of national unity and integrity. However, in Lily Thomas v. UOI,[16] HC clarified its observations in the previous Sarla Mudgal case, stating that it had not given an instruction for the adoption of the UCC in that case. In Danial Latifi v. Union of India,[17] a five-judge constitutional bank upheld the validity of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights in the Event of Divorce) Act 1986; This was adopted after much shouting and shouting in the case of Shah Bano. In John Vallamatton v. UOI,[18] a three-judge panel of the Supreme Court again regretted the non-application of the Common Civil Code. It has been said that article 44 is based on the principle that, in a civilized society, there is no necessary link between religion and personal law. All marriages must be registered: First step towards UCC – In Seema v. Ashwani Kumar,[19] the Supreme Court ruled that all marriages, regardless of religion, must be registered.
Is there a way out? The importance of a uniform civil code is never questioned, but the cooperation of the Muslim community, especially the Sunniten.Es, there are far too many examples where laws and statutes have failed to curb such insensitive and orthodox practices as they were promulgated to contain and abolish in the first place. Many legal solutions have also failed miserably. We must criticize ourselves as a nation and as citizens of India, because it is not the executive, legislative and judicial that make up a nation. It is the citizens themselves who form the heart, lungs and stomach of one of them.
