This article has been written by Jyoti Prajapati from KES Shri. Jayantilal H Patel Law College. Edited and published by Risha Fatema.

ABSTRACT:-

The Indian Constitution’s Article 44, which necessitates the adoption of a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) for all citizens, has long been a source of discussion and dispute. India’s varied cultural, religious, and legal environment is reflected in the disputed Uniform Civil Code. An overview of the arguments for and against the UCC’s implementation, as well as any possible consequences for Indian society.

The UCC’s supporters contend that it is necessary to guarantee justice, equality, and national cohesion. They argue that discrimination would disappear and social cohesiveness would be strengthened by a single set of civil rules that all citizens would have to abide by, regardless of their religious affiliations. Proponents also emphasize the necessity of respecting individual rights and secularism while addressing the gender gaps seen in several personal legislations. On the other hand, opponents legitimately highlight concerns about possible violations of cultural identities and religious freedoms. India’s pluralistic character and the liberty of religious communities may be compromised, they contend, if a unified code were to be imposed. The difficulties in balancing many religions’ customs and practices within a single legal framework are another area of contention raised by critics.

The UCC discussion highlights the need to have meaningful conversations and reach a consensus among all parties involved, despite the obstacles. To successfully adopt a UCC and negotiate the complexity of India’s legal system, phased implementation, thorough consultation, and strong enforcement measures are needed.

KEYWORDS:-

• Uniform civil code
• Gender equality
• Constitution
• National unity
• One nation, one law

INTRODUCTION:-

The discussion surrounding the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in India centres on the desire to create uniform legal provisions that apply to all citizens, irrespective of their religious affiliations. These provisions pertain specifically to aspects like marriage contracts, divorce, inheritance laws, and adoption processes. This project faces strong resistance because of concerns that it may violate religious and cultural rights, even if it is based on the goals of national unity and legal equality. Article 29, which protects people the freedom to keep their unique cultural identities, provides constitutional protection against discrimination against such concerns.

The UCC’s supporters urge its implementation as a way to preserve the legal framework’s impartiality principle and promote social harmony. They argue that a unified code would foster a feeling of shared citizenship and lessen the inequalities brought about by disparate personal laws. On the other hand, opponents contend that enforcing a universal code may violate religious organizations’ autonomy and jeopardize their constitutional right to freely practice and spread their religion. In addition, the discussion includes complex matters like Muslim women’s right to maintenance and customs like early marriage that are common among particular groups of people. These nuances highlight the difficult balance that must be struck between the need to maintain religious and cultural diversity and the goal of legal uniformity. Ultimately, the arguments around the UCC illustrate the complicated interplay between national unity and diversity within the context of India’s multicultural society, needing an advanced method of legal reform that acknowledges and respects the varied identities of its populous. Let’s look into the history of UCC and why it is a controversial and hot topic.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:-

The research technique for this secondary source on the Uniform Civil Code is reviewing the literature to obtain relevant information from already-published sources, evaluating the data to pinpoint important findings, and taking into account any constraints or ethical issues that may arise.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE:-

Discussions on gender equality, secularism, and cultural pluralism have dominated the discourse surrounding the UCC.

The Anglo-Hindu Law, a codified legal system that governed Hindu personal concerns including marriage, inheritance, and succession, was implemented by the British administration during the colonial era, which is when the UCC originated. In parallel, personal matters were governed by Islamic law (Sharia) and customs in Muslim and tribal societies, respectively. Diverse legal frameworks based on customary and religious rules were made possible by this legal pluralism, and they continued long after India attained independence in 1947. The challenge of creating a judicial system that balanced the nation’s many religious and cultural traditions with the secularism and equality guaranteed by the Constitution fell to the Indian Constitution’s framers after independence. Article 44 of the Constitution gave rise to the UCC by directing the state to work toward providing a consistent civil code for all of its residents. But the architects also acknowledged the delicate nature of personal laws, giving them a quasi-constitutional status that preserves religious communities’ authority over questions of personal law.

Governments have been resistant to implementing a complete UCC despite the constitutional obligation, citing political expediency and the need to protect religious plurality as reasons. Rather, scattered changes have been implemented in domains like Hindu marriage. While personal rules controlling Muslims and other religious communities remain largely unaltered, piecemeal modifications have been implemented in areas such as Hindu marriage and succession laws. Political concerns have added to the resistance to enacting a UCC, as religious minorities worry that uniform rules may compromise their right to religious freedom and cultural identity. The public conversation on gender justice and minority rights, along with high-profile judicial disputes, contributed to the rise in importance of the UCC discussion in the 1980s and 1990s. A national discussion about the need for a consistent legal framework to guarantee gender equality was sparked by the seminal Shah Bano case in 1985, which raised the question of Muslim women’s maintenance rights.

Where Shah Bano is most landmark case the discussion surrounding India’s Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is greatly impacted by the Shah Bano case. In particular, the case brought to light the differences in personal rules governing marriage, divorce, and support among various faith communities. After her husband divorced her, Shah Bano, a Muslim woman, asked him for maintenance. The need for gender-just laws that apply to all people, regardless of their religious beliefs, was highlighted by the Supreme Court’s decision to rule in her favour and provide her support under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The government’s subsequent enactment of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act in 1986, however, highlighted the difficulties and disagreements surrounding personal laws based on religious customs and beliefs. This act overturned the Supreme Court’s ruling and limited the rights of Muslim women to seek maintenance.

As a result, the Shah Bano case came to represent the larger discussion around the UCC. It brought to light the difficulties in balancing religious diversity with the secularism and gender equality entrenched in the Indian Constitution. Supporters of the UCC contend that by giving all people a uniform legal framework, it would end these differences and guarantee women’s equal rights and protections regardless of their faith community. On the other hand, UCC opponents frequently point to the Shah Bano case as evidence of the need of respecting religious freedom and cultural diversity. They argue that the plurality of India’s social fabric could be compromised and minority populations’ religious freedoms violated by enforcing a single code. All things considered, the Shah Bano case is an awful reminder of the ongoing controversy surrounding the UCC, bringing to light the conflicts that exist between religious beliefs, individual liberties, and India’s desire for legal consistency. Opposition from conservative Muslim groups claimed that the Supreme Court’s decision to provide maintenance to the Muslim divorcee Shah Bano under the secular Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) violated Islamic law.

The second most relevant case to the uniform civil code is Sarla Mudgal case; In 1995, the Supreme Court of India rendered a significant decision in a legal case known as Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India. The case addressed the problem of bigamy, specifically about Hindu men who converted to Islam to get married again without first obtaining a formal divorce. According to the petitioners, these conversions and the marriages that followed amounted to bigamy and were against Hindu personal law. Following its ruling in the Sarla Mudgal case, the Supreme Court made clear that legislative changes were required to combat bigamy and safeguard women’s rights. The case brought to light the inconsistencies and complexities within India’s legal system, where various religious communities are governed by separate personal laws. The judgment emphasized the urgency of enacting comprehensive reforms to harmonize conflicting laws and uphold the principles of gender equality and secularism enshrined in the Indian Constitution. In summary, the Sarla Mudgal case is significant in the context of the UCC debate as it highlights the challenges posed by disparate personal laws and underscores the need for a unified legal framework to promote equality and justice for all citizens, regardless of their religious affiliations. Later, in response to political pressure, the Rajiv Gandhi-led government passed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, therefore nullifying the verdict of the Supreme Court and relieving Muslim men of their duty to provide maintenance after the iddat period. The episode rekindled the discussion over the necessity of a UCC by highlighting the difficulties in balancing religious legislation with the equality and secularism premised in the constitution. Over the years, several administrations have experimented with the concept of implementing a Uniform Civil Code (UCC), but have encountered resistance from religious organizations and political factors. Parties from all ideological varieties have been reluctant to hurt their supporters, and the matter has remained a divisive political topic.

The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) detractors contend that its implementation may potentially violate the constitutionally protected freedoms of religion and jeopardize the cultural independence of religious minorities. They say that a one-size-fits-all approach to personal laws ignores the different socio-cultural settings in which these laws operate and risks destroying the pluralistic fabric of Indian society. On the other side, proponents of the UCC argue that its adoption is necessary to advance equality, gender justice, and national integration. They contend that uniform laws will promote a feeling of common citizenship based on shared legal norms and do away with the discrimination against women and other marginalized groups inherent in religious personal laws. Despite different viewpoints, the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) issue is still developing as a result of shifting political circumstances, societal norms, and legal advancements. The shape of personal laws in India is still being shaped by judicial interventions and incremental reforms, even though a comprehensive UCC is still a long way off. This is because the world’s largest democracy is still struggling to balance tradition and modernity, gender equality and religious freedom, and diversity and unity. The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) has been heavily supported by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in India. The party’s support for female equality, national integration, and Hindu nationalism are the foundations of its position on the UCC. The Union of Concerned Citizens (UCC) has been long favoured by the BJP. It would supersede the current religiously specific personal laws with a uniform body of civil rules that would apply to all citizens, irrespective of their religious beliefs. The party contends that to preserve the legal foundations of equality before the law and to promote national unity by addressing religious differences, a UCC is necessary. The BJP’s vision of a contemporary, progressive India, where individual liberties and rights are protected by a unified legal system, is another factor motivating its support for the UCC. The party believes that enacting a UCC will be essential to realizing this goal and will help to overcome the gender discrimination that exists in several personal laws, especially those that deal with inheritance, marriage, and divorce.

However, a number of groups, including some political rivals and minority religious communities, have opposed the BJP’s support of the UCC. The BJP’s support for a UCC, according to its detractors, is driven by its Hindu nationalist goal and has the potential to erode minority populations’ religious liberties and cultural identity. The BJP is committed to implementing the UCC because it sees it as an essential reform to uphold justice, equality, and secularism in India’s legal system, despite the difficulties and issues surrounding it. The party continues to push for the establishment of a UCC by legislative methods, having included the matter in its election manifestos. But being a significant political force in India, the BJP has continuously pushed for the establishment of a uniform civil code (UCC) all across the nation, especially in areas like Uttarakhand. In Indian politics, the UCC is a divisive subject that touches on matters of identity, culture, and religion. In line with its larger ideological positions of advancing a single national identity and guaranteeing equal rights and treatment for all citizens, regardless of their religious affiliations, the BJP is in favour of a UCC. Consequently, as part of its electoral goal, the BJP frequently brings up the UCC in a number of states, including Uttarakhand. The most recent discussion was started by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who emphasized to BJP party members in June 2023 that a UCC was necessary. Prior to this, a public notice was released by the 22^nd Law Commission of India to solicit feedback on the UCC. The 21^st Law Commission decided that a UCC was “neither necessary nor desirable at this stage” following several months of public discussion, therefore this was unexpected. The main argument put forth by the 22^nd Law Commission for the reexamination was the fact that the last report was published more than three years ago. The Constitution states in Article 44 that “the state shall endeavour to secure the citizen a Uniform Civil Code throughout the territory of India,” although this is merely an optional goal of state policy. A few members of the Constituent Assembly have advocated for it to be recognized as a justiciable “fundamental right,” but the concept has encountered resistance, particularly from the Muslim members, who believe it will weaken the rights of religious minorities in India. Since the 1980s, the BJP under Modi has made the push for a UCC as a central platform, frequently including it in statements.

The idea that past Indian National Congress administrations placated Indian Muslims by refusing to amend Sharia Law in the same manner that Hindu law was amended in the 1950s is another factor driving the conservative, Hindu nationalist BJP’s desire for the UCC. However, this position has since been reexamined. Since the 1930s, some segments of the Indian women’s rights movement have likewise demanded a UCC. However, because of a lack of information, there is still a gap in the debate’s core. Regarding the complex political and constitutional matters pertaining to personal laws in India, no one is exactly sure how a UCC would be drafted or how it would operate. An Indian’s personal rules are determined by their religious and ethnic identity. The “Hindu code,” which consists of four laws enacted by the Indian Parliament in the 1950s, governs Hindus. These laws, which gave women significant rights not previously granted by customary Hindu law, were the result of a political push to modernize and codify Hindu law.

Similarly, the 1937 Shariat Act recognized that Muslims in India were subject to Sharia Law in aspects of personal law. However, the application of personal laws is complicated. The Hindu code not only covers non-Hindu communities like Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists, but it also leaves out certain communities that practice Hinduism.

The Hindu code is only applicable to the tribal communities of India if the government so decides, regardless of whether or not these tribes follow Hinduism. Tribal groups’ unique constitutional position is acknowledged by their exclusion from Hindu statutes. Following independence, the Constitution was changed to grant specific status to a few northeastern states with a predominance of tribes, exempting them from the application of personal legislation enacted by Parliament. The Idea of a “joint family” is one of the distinctive aspects of Hindu personal law that are preserved in the Hindu code. A Hindu’s birthright is a portion of the family’s ancestral property, which gives them the right to maintenance from that land as well as the ability to petition the court for property division. Prior to a 2006 modification, this privilege was exclusive to Hindu men; however, Hindu women are now covered as well.

Along with addressing certain delicate political issues, a UCC will have to take into consideration the complexities of India’s tribal and religious identity. It will be up to legislators to determine whether to eliminate the distinctive elements of Hindu law in addition to those of other legal systems and whether to subject tribal populations to a legal system they did not request or desire. Without a draft now available, it is uncertain how a UCC will be politically acceptable. These are challenging questions that any UCC will have to solve.

In order to eliminate discrimination against women, recognize same-sex relationships, and define the rights and obligations of all parties, many parts of religious and customary law require formal revision. Furthermore, although proponents of a UCC maintain that uniformity will solve these issues, their argument is undermined by the absence of specifics regarding how this will actually be accomplished. This argument will remain contentious and unproductive until the Union Government produces a coherent draft of a UCC.

METHOD:-

I used the data analysis approach and descriptive design in this research work. These techniques help us grasp the subject matter I’m writing about in great detail. As a result, I was able to put together an outline of the topics I needed to research and concentrate on in order to increase the creativity of both the quantity and quality of my article. I incorporated some prior cases from the internet into my study report, which helped me feel more at ease and connected to the subject. I used websites like Wikipedia and a few other legal websites and books to get qualitative data.

SUGGESTIONS:-

The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) implementation process in India is a complicated undertaking that necessitates careful consideration of many problems. Several recommendations might be taken into consideration to guarantee an easy transition and efficient performance. To start, in order to address concerns and gain support, there should be a thorough consultation process involving all relevant parties, such as religious and community leaders, legal experts, and civil society organizations. The government should also launch a thorough public awareness campaign to inform people about the advantages and consequences of a UCC, highlighting the group’s contribution to national integration, justice, and gender equality. Additionally, a gradual strategy for implementation could be used, beginning with topics like succession and inheritance rules where agreement is more easily reached before moving on to more divisive subjects like marriage and divorce. To guarantee the successful application of the UCC, it is also essential to set up strong procedures for enforcement and dispute settlement. In addition, the government needs to give top priority to protecting cultural diversity and minority rights while putting protections in place to avoid interfering with religious freedom.

My personal opinion would be if we are not able to implement UCC, like everyone is scared that their culture will get demolished so, why we can not make a change in personal laws, which are made without any logic and which are derogatory, if we make a change it that so, this can be the other way to settle down issues.

CONCLUSION:-

The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) discussion in India is complicated because it draws a balance between issues of justice and equality as well as issues of religious freedom and cultural diversity. To ensure fairness and respect for the rights of all citizens, the adoption of a UCC necessitates careful planning, phased implementation, and strong enforcement measures. In the end, it’s an important step toward creating a society that is more fair and inclusive.

Reference:-

[1] Shah Bano case

[2] Sarla Mudgal vs Union of India

[3] BJP’s Uniform Civil Code push: A political tool to polarise people for 2024 election

[4] Reigniting ‘debate’ on India’s Uniform Civil Code

[5] Amit Shah’s speech