Prime Minister Narendra Modi strongly advocated for a uniform civil code from the ramparts of the Red Fort on the occasion of Independence Day. After hoisting the flag, PM Modi declared that the nation now wants the establishment of a secular civil code. He added that the demand has also been consistently supported by the Supreme Court. The statement was made in the presence of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud. Prime Minister Modi pointed out that at present there is a communal civil code that discriminates between people and a large section of the country believes the same.
He mentioned that laws that divide the country on a communal basis and promote inequality have no place in modern society and added that there is a need to adopt a secular civil code to bridge this gap. “I would say that it is the need of the hour that there be a secular civil code in the country. We have spent 75 years in the communal civil code. Now, we will have to move towards the secular code. Only then would we be free of discrimination based on religion. This will also eliminate the sense of alienation among the common people,” the prime minister conveyed.
Why did PM Modi mention UCC?
The main focus of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is the Uniform Civil Code. It’s an important part of their electoral manifesto. All the prominent leaders of the party including Prime Minister Narendra Modi have talked about fulfilling this promise. Uttarakhand’s BJP government has also implemented UCC in the state after PM Modi’s directive. This would ensure that all religions will be subject to the same laws regarding non-criminal civil concerns involving marriage, property and inheritance, among others. Notably, UCC was not part of the BJP manifesto before 1989. However, it was on the agenda of the Jana Sangh, which existed before the BJP’s foundation in 1980.
BJP initially mentioned the Uniform Civil Code in its 1989 manifesto after the Supreme Court’s 1986 Shah Bano judgment was reversed by the Rajiv Gandhi administration which stated that a commission would be appointed to examine the various personal laws prevalent in the country including Muslim law, Christian law and Parsi law to identify fair and equitable elements in these laws so a draft could be prepared with the aim of developing a consensus for Uniform Civil Code. There is a continuous debate on making a law on this basis by the central government and enacting it across the country. Ministers of the BJP administration have also advocated it from time to time. Now PM Modi has announced UCC from the Red Fort.
Protest of Congress led-opposition
The Congress has begun to complain against Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s announcement. His remark, according to veteran Congress leader Jairam Ramesh, is an affront to Dr Bhimrao Ambedkar, the man who drafted the Indian Constitution. “The non-biological PM’s capacity for malice, mischief, and maligning of history knows no bounds. It was on full display today from the Red Fort. To say that we have had a ‘communal civil code’ till now is a gross insult to Dr Ambedkar, who was the greatest champion of reforms in Hindu personal laws that became a reality by the mid-1950s. These reforms had been bitterly opposed by the (RSS Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) and Jan Sangh,” he wrote on X (previously Twitter).
On the other hand, Congress spokesperson Pawan Khera alleged, “He takes oath on the Constitution and then calls the rules written by Babasaheb Ambedkar communal. He in a way speaks against Atal Bihari Vajpayee and says that terrorist attacks took place during the tenure of previous governments. We want to know what steps he has taken to ensure the safety of Bangladeshi Hindus?”
What is the Uniform Civil Code?
If the Uniform Civil Code is understood in simple terms, then it is a law that applies to every community in the country irrespective of religion, caste or community. There shall be a single law for every individual. The British slapped criminal and revenue laws on everyone through the Indian Penal Code 1860, Indian Evidence Act 1872, Indian Contract Act 1872, Specific Relief Act 1877 and others but left issues related to marriage, divorce, inheritance, property and other matters to the religious groups according to their own beliefs. The laws issued under the religious practices of Hindus were repealed and the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, the Hindu Succession Act 1956, the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956 and the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956 were enforced through Hindu Code Bill.
However, the personal law of Muslims was maintained which prolonged the controversy. As a result, in the matters of Muslim accused or prosecutors in the courts, the Quran and Islamic verses and traditions are cited during the hearing. Muslims vehemently oppose the demand for UCC for all religions. Muslims argue that their law is based on the Quran and Hadiths and they will abide by it and resist any modifications. The primary reason for the dispute is that these personal laws allow Muslim men to take four wives. The Uniform Civil Code has also been openly rejected by the Muslim Personal Law Board.
The Constitution and Dr. Ambedkar regarding UCC
According to PM Modi, the country should have a single set of laws. The Uniform Civil Code has also received a lot of support from the Supreme Court. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court and the BJP government’s endorsement of the Uniform Civil Code is compliant with the Constitution. The incorporation of the Uniform Civil Code is expressly stated in the Constitution. Despite this, the Congress party keeps visiting the issue due to the politics of appeasement. The Congress claimed that PM Modi’s remarks were an affront to Dr Ambedkar and the Constitution but this is not true.
The Directive Principles of State Policy are described in Articles 36 to 51 in Part 4 of the Indian Constitution, which came into force on 26 January 1950. These Directive Principles are called the basic spirit of the Fundamental Rights and UCC is described as mandatory in Article 44 which reads, “India shall endeavour to implement a Uniform Civil Code for the citizens throughout the country.” It is important to note that the Directive Principles of State Policy in Article 37 and Article 44 of the Constitution, though unenforceable in the court of law, are still fundamental in the governance of the country and it is the duty of the country (India) to implement these principles by forming laws.
75 years ago, Baba Saheb Bhimrao Ambedkar clarified that the Uniform Civil Code could not be made “purely voluntary” in light of the fears and apprehensions of the minority community. Today, the Congress party is contending that PM Modi’s rhetoric about executing UCC from the Red Fort today is a disrespect to Dr Ambedkar, which is utterly false.
Pandit Nehru opposed the Uniform Civil Code
Jawaharlal Nehru, the prime minister of India, disregarded the discussion on the Uniform Civil Code during the debate on the Hindu Code in Parliament. He previously stated that Muslims are not yet prepared for the Uniform Civil Code, hence the time is not suitable for it. He had framed the entire matter in terms of Muslim demands rather than national interest. He, while defending the Hindu Code Bill instead of the UCC in Parliament, conveyed, “I do not think that the time has come to implement it in India at present. When more than 80% of the country’s population has been brought under personal law through the Hindu Code Bill, then there is no justification for implementing the Uniform Civil Code for all citizens in India.”
Muslim appeasement of Congress
After independence, when a large population of Muslims remained in India, Congress started to use it as its vote bank. Socialist leader JP Kripalani charged Pandit Nehru’s Congress government with being communal during the 1954 Hindu Code Bill discussion. He asserted that laws are solely being introduced by this government for Hindus and not for Muslims. India’s first and then President Dr Rajendra Prasad was fiercely against the Hindu Bill. He conveyed that these laws are being passed arbitrarily and unilaterally without considering the views of the general public. Furthermore, he threatened to not sign the legislation which led to a clash between him and Pandit Nehru, who was Prime Minister at the time.
Moreover, the then Congress headed by Rajiv Gandhi had drawn a new line of Muslim appeasement by overturning the Supreme Court’s decision in the Shah Bano case. The 59-year-old woman was given triple talaq by her husband Mohammad Ahmed Khan and she with her 5 children were left to fend for themselves. The case made its way from lower courts to the Supreme Court. On 23rd April 1985, Shah Bano’s husband was compelled to pay alimony to his wife and children by the Constitution bench of the Supreme Court, which overturned the Muslim Personal Law Board’s decision. Mohammad Ahmed Khan was ordered by the Supreme Court to pay Rs 179.20 each month.
Additionally, the Supreme Court’s Constitution bench had appealed to the central government to further the “Uniform Civil Code” movement. Fundamentalist Muslims protested the same. Rajiv Gandhi’s administration reversed the Supreme Court’s verdict to appease them. The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986 was passed by the government in the House. Due to this step of the government, the lives of Muslim women remained as terrible as before. When Shahbano was divorced at the age of 59, she was left to live with her five children without a penny. There was no hope left for any Muslim woman in such a circumstance. On the other hand, the Modi administration eliminated triple talaq and is moving toward UCC.
Muslim Personal Law is ‘Communal Civil Code’
A segment which identifies itself as secular and upholds the Constitution seeks to refute the intent behind the Uniform Civil Code of the Constitution. It believes that Pandit Nehru was correct when he created the Muslim Personal Code and the Hindu Code for other religions. However, two different sets of rules in a nation can never be considered correct, particularly if they are diametrically opposite to each other. For instance, the age of marriage of girls belonging to Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, Sikh and other communities has been fixed at 18 years.
A rape case will be filed under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POSCO) Act against anyone who forms a physical relationship with a girl from these religions with her consent, even a day before she comes of age. On the other hand, Muslim Personal Law talks about the Nikah (Islamic wedding) of a 15-year-old girl.
Four marriages among Muslims: Muslim Personal Law, also known as Sharia Law, is based on the Islamic book Quran and Hadiths. According to the Quran, Muslims are permitted to get married four times. Muslims view these four Nikahs as legitimate. The general law of India stipulates that a person can only get married once. Second marriage can be allowed, under special circumstances.
Divorce and alimony: Muslim Personal Law allows women to be granted triple talaq. Nevertheless, the Modi administration outlawed it in 2019. However, it is not common for Muslims to award alimony to the woman they divorce. They merely return a very small amount of Mahr (bride wealth obligation, in the form of money, possessions or teaching of verses from the Quran by the groom, to the bride at the time of the Islamic Wedding) while a husband is required by Indian divorce law to provide his wife with alimony or a specific sum of payment.
Custody of child after divorce: According to Hindu law, in case of divorce of parents, custody of the child is determined under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956. At the time of divorce, if the child is less than 5 years old, he will be handed over to his mother but if the kid is above 9 years old, he can tell the court whether he wants to stay with his mother or his father. Custody will go to one of the parents. On the other hand, under Muslim Sharia law, the custody of the child is with the mother till the child is 7 years old and if she is unable to support or nurture him, then she can give the custody to his father. Meanwhile, there is no rule regarding custody among Christians.
Rights of daughters in property: Females in India have equal rights to the properties of their fathers and husbands under the country’s general civil law. However, in Muslim personal law, women do not receive the same privileges. Women are entitled to half of a man’s portion of ancestral property under Sharia Law and therefore not seen as equal stockholders. However, a Muslim woman has no ownership rights over the possessions of her in-laws. Her only rights are related to the Mehr she receives during her marriage, the gifts she obtains and the money she is given by her father. Sharia law limits her rights to these properties in the event of a divorce. The husband is free to grant her wishes if he so decides.
Inheritance Law: An adopted son has the same rights as a biological son concerning the property of his parents under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act of 1956. However, in Sharia Law, this isn’t the case. In Islam, adopted children are not entitled to property. A fatwa had also been issued in this respect by Darul Uloom Deoband. Deoband had stated that an adopted child’s rights would differ from those of a biological child due to Sharia Law. He will not get any rights in the property, nor will he be able to inherit anything. It also points out that a child does not automatically acquire the rights of a legitimate kid just because they are adopted. He will have to follow Sharia Law after he’s grown.
According to Sharia law, an adopted child can be given a hiba (the transfer of the possession of the property, movable and immovable, from one person to the other willingly and without any reward), but cannot be made an heir. Islam states that the adoption of a child raises the issue of ‘mahram’ (a family member with whom marriage would be considered permanently unlawful). The Muslim Personal Law Board had also told the court that Islamic law does not consider an adopted child equal to a biological one. Furthermore, a Muslim can only leave a third of their property to someone else under Sharia Law and the remaining property will have to be divided according to it. Sharia Law makes no allowance for leaving all of the property to a boy or female. Fathers like C Shukkur are left with options like the Special Marriage Act in such a predicament.
Personal law is against the Constitution
Personal law is against the Indian Constitution. According to Article 14 of the Constitution, all citizens of the country are equal. Article 15 prohibits discrimination based on caste, religion, language, region and place of birth. Article 16 provides equal opportunities to all. Article 19 gives the right to study, live, settle and work anywhere in the country. Similarly, Article 21 gives everyone the right to live a life with respect. Article 25 guarantees the freedom to practice one’s faith, but not to practice irreligion. It offers permission to observe customs, but only appropriate ones. It grants liberty to observe customs, but not the bad ones. This ensures that the implementation of the Uniform Civil Code in the nation won’t violate the Constitution in any way.
Providing patronage to a particular section in the country and making separate arrangements for it is not only an insult to the Constitution, but it also promotes communalism. On the basis of Muslim Personal Law, a very private organization like the Muslim Personal Law Board gets the desired work done by putting pressure on the government. If the law becomes uniform in the country, then the promotion of communalism will be curbed.
Read the report in Hindi here.
