Uniform Civil Code: The Quest for One Nation One Law

The debate on Uniform Civil Code (UCC) has reignited recently after the law commission of India set out the notification for inviting suggestions on 14th June 2023. Thereafter a lot of political debate has churned up on it with the Government of India lead by PM Modi himself batting for one nation one law in form of UCC. There are reports that government of India might table the draft UCC bill in parliament in the upcoming monsoon session and may soon push forward for its consideration and passing going into an election year. This has evoked sharp reactions across socio-religious groups and communities. However since the bill is yet to tabled in the parliament, in this blog i would be simply focus on the constitutional and legal status of the UCC as part of developing a common civil code for all communities/religions in India.

Constituent Assembly Debates

The Constituent Assembly Debates on the issue of Uniform Civil Code were heated ones. When the Article 35 that stated "The State shall endeavor to secure for citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India” was introduced before the Constituent Assembly on 23rd November 1948 many of the members vociferously objected to the same. Mr Mohammad Ismail Sahib, a member of the constituent assembly stated as under:

“Now the right to follow personal law is part of the way of life of those people who
are following such laws; it is part of their religion and part of their culture. If anything
is done affecting the personal laws, it will be tantamount to interference with the way
of life of those people who have been observing these laws for generations and ages.
This secular State which we are trying to create should not do anything to interfere
with the way of life and religion of the people. The matter of retaining personal law is
nothing new; we have precedents in European countries. Yugoslavia, for instance, that is, the kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, is obliged under treaty obligations to guarantee the rights of minorities.”

“We find similar clauses in several other European constitutions also. But these
refer to minorities while my amendment refers not to the minorities alone but to all
people including the majority community, because it says, "Any group, section or
community of people shall not be obliged" etc. Therefore it seeks to secure the rights
of all people in regard to their existing personal law.”

Mr. Nazirudin Ahmad stated as follows:

I do not wish to confine my remarks to the inconvenience felt by the Muslim community alone. I would put it on a much broader ground. In fact, each community, each religious community has certain religious laws, certain civil laws inseparably connected with religious beliefs and practices. I believe that in framing a uniform draft code these religious laws or semi-religious laws should be kept out of its way. There are several reasons which underlie this amendment. One of them is that perhaps it clashes with article 19 of the Draft Constitution. In article 19 it is provided that `subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion.' In fact, this is so fundamental that the Drafting Committee has very rightly introduced this in this place. Then in clause (2) of the same article it has been further provided by way of limitation of the right that `Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or preclude the State from making any law regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice'. I can quite see that there may be many pernicious practices which may accompany religious practices and they may be controlled. But there are certain religious practices, certain religious laws which do not come within the exception in clause (2), viz. financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practices. Having
guaranteed, and very rightly guaranteed the freedom of religious practice and the
freedom to propagate religion, I think the present article tries to undo what has been
given in article 19. I submit, Sir, that we must try to prevent this anomaly. ….. I submit that the present article is likely to encourage the State to break the guarantees given in article 19”.

I submit, Sir, there are certain aspects of the Civil Procedure Code which have
already interfered with our personal laws and very rightly so. But during the 175 years
of British rule, they did not interfere with certain fundamental personal laws. They
have enacted the Registration Act, the Limitation Act, the Civil Procedure Code, the
Criminal Procedure Code, the Penal Code, the Evidence Act, the Transfer of Property
Act, the Sarda Act and various other Acts. They have been imposed gradually as
occasion arose and they were intended to make the laws uniform although they clash
with the personal laws of a particular community. But take the case of marriage
practice and the laws of inheritance. They have never interfered with them. It will be
difficult at this stage of our society to ask the people to give up their ideas of
marriage, which are associated with religious institutions in many communities. The
laws of inheritance are also supposed to be the result of religious injunctions. I submit
that the interference with these matters should be gradual and must progress with the
advance of time. I have no doubt that a stage would come when the civil law would be
uniform. But then that time has not yet come. We believe that the power that has
been given to the State to make the Civil Code uniform is in advance of the time. As it
is, any State would be justified under article 35 to interfere with the settled laws of the
different communities at once. For instance, there are marriage practices in various
communities. If we want to introduce a law that every marriage shall be registered
and if not it will not be valid, we can do so under article 35. But would you invalidate a
marriage which is valid under the existing law and under the present religious beliefs
and practices on the ground that it has not been registered under any new law and
thus bastardise the children born?

This is only one instance of how interference can go too far. As I have already submitted, the goal should be towards a uniform civil code but it should be gradual and with the consent of the people concerned. I have therefore in my amendment suggested that religious laws relating to particular communities should not be affected except with their consent to be ascertained in such manner as Parliament may decide by law. Parliament may well decide to ascertain the consent of the community through their representatives, and this could be secured by the representatives by their election speeches and pledges. In fact, this may be made an article of faith in an election, and a vote on that could be regarded as consent. These are matters of detail. I have attempted by my amendment to leave it to the Central Legislature to decide how to ascertain this consent. I submit, Sir, that this is not a matter of mere idealism. It is a question of stern reality which we must not refuse to face and I believe it will lead to a considerable amount of misunderstanding and resentment amongst the various sections of the country. What the British in 175 years failed to do or was afraid to do, what the Muslims in the course of 500 years refrained from doing, we should not give power to the State to do all at once. I submit, Sir, that we should proceed not in haste but with caution, with experience, with statesmanship and with sympathy”.

Kazi Karimuddin, member of the Constituent Assembly that framed the
Constitution, argued:
“The people outside and the members of the Constituent Assembly must realize that a Muslim regards the personal law as part of the religion and I really assure you that there is not a single Muslim in the country at least I have not seen one, who wants a change in the mandatory provision of religious rights and personal laws, and if there is anyone who wants a change in the mandatory principle, or religion as a matter of personal law, then he cannot be a Muslim. Therefore, if you really want to protect the minorities because this is a secular state it does not mean that people should have no religion, if this is the view of the minority Muslims or any other minority that they want to abide by personal law, those laws have to be protected.”

Hasrat Mohani, freedom fighter and Urdu poet who coined the iconic “Inquilab Zindabad” slogan, was equally emphatic:

“I would like to say that any party, political or communal, has no right to interfere in the personal law of any group. More particularly I say this regarding Muslims. There are three fundamentals in their personal law, namely, religion, language, and culture which have not been ordained by human agency. Their personal law regarding divorce, marriage, and inheritance has been derived from the Quran and its interpretation is recorded therein. If there is any one, who thinks that he can interfere in the personal law of the Muslims, then I would say to him that the result will be very harmful. … Mussalmans will never submit to any interference in their personal law, and they will have to face an iron wall of Muslim determination to oppose them in every way”

The other side of the arguments: were presented by Shri KM Munshi who stated as follows:

“It must also be remembered that if this clause is not put in, it does not mean that
the Parliament in future would have no right to enact a Civil Code. The only restriction to such a right would be article 19 and I have already pointed out that article 19, accepted by the House unanimously, permits legislation covering secular activities. The whole object of this article is that as and when the Parliament thinks proper or rather when the majority in the Parliament thinks proper an attempt may be made to unify the personal law of the country.

A further argument has been advanced that the enactment of a Civil Code would
be tyrannical to minorities. Is it tyrannical? Nowhere in advanced Muslim countries the personal law of each minority has been recognised as so sacrosanct as to prevent the enactment of a Civil Code. Take for instance Turkey or Egypt. No minority in these countries is permitted to have such rights. But I go further. When the Shariat Act was passed or when certain laws were passed in the Central Legislature in the old regime, the Khojas and Cutchi Memons were highly dissatisfied.

They then followed certain Hindu customs; for generations since they became
converts they had done so. They did not want to conform to the Shariat; and yet by a
legislation of the Central Legislature certain Muslim members who felt that Shariat law should be enforced upon the whole community carried their point. The Khojas and
Cutchi Memons most unwillingly had to submit to it. Where were the rights of minority then? When you want to consolidate a community, you have to take into consideration the benefit which may accrue to the whole community and not to the customs of a part of it. It is not therefore correct to say that such an act is tyranny of the majority. If you will look at the countries in Europe which have a Civil Code, everyone who goes there from any part of the world and every minority, has to submit to the Civil Code. It is not felt to be tyrannical to the minority. The point however is this, whether we are going to consolidate and unify our personal law in such a way that the way of life of the whole country may in course of time be unified and secular. We want to divorce religion from personal law, from what may be called social relations or from the rights of parties as regards inheritance or succession. What have these things got to do with religion I really fail to understand. Take for instance the Hindu Law Draft which is before the Legislative Assembly. If one looks at Manu and Yagnyavalkya and all the rest of them, I think most of the provisions of the new Bill will run counter to their injunctions. But after all we are an advancing society. We are in a stage where we must unify and consolidate the nation by every means without interfering with religious practices. If however the religious practices in the past have been so construed as to cover the whole field of life, we have reached a point when we must put our foot down and say that these matters are not religion, they are purely matters for secular legislation. This is what is emphasised by this article.

This attitude of mind perpetuated under the British rule, that personal law is part
of religion, has been fostered by the British and by British courts. We must, therefore,
outgrow it. If I may just remind the honourable Member who spoke last of a particular
incident from Fereshta which comes to my mind, Allauddin Khilji made several
changes which offended against the Shariat, though he was the first ruler to establish
Muslim Sultanate here. The Kazi of Delhi objected to some of his reforms, and his
reply was--"I am an ignorant man and I am ruling this country in its best interests. I
am sure, looking at my ignorance and my good intentions, the Almighty will forgive
me, when he finds that I have not acted according to the Shariat." If Allauddin could
not, much less can a modern government accept the proposition that religious rights
cover personal law or several other matters which we have been unfortunately trained
to consider as part of our religion. That is my submission.”

Dr BR Ambedkar in the concluding remarks on the debate said,

“Sir, I am afraid I cannot accept the amendments which have been moved to this article. In dealing with this matter, I do not propose to touch on the merits of the question as to whether this country should have a Civil Code or it should not. That is a matter which I think has been dealt with sufficiently for the occasion by my friend, Mr. Munshi, as well as by Shri Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar. When the amendments to certain fundamental rights are moved, it would be possible for me to make a full statement on this subject, and I therefore do not propose to deal with it here.

My friend, Mr. Hussain Imam, in rising to support the amendments, asked whether it was possible and desirable to have a uniform Code of laws for a country so vast as this is. Now I must confess that I was very much surprised at that statement, for the simple reason that we have in this country a uniform code of laws covering almost every aspect of human relationship. We have a uniform and complete Criminal Code operating throughout the country, which is contained in the Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code. We have the Law of Transfer of Property, which deals with property relations and which is operative throughout the country. Then there are the Negotiable Instruments Acts: and I can cite innumerable enactments which would prove that this country has practically a Civil Code, uniform in its content and applicable to the whole of the country. The only province the Civil Law has not been able to invade so far is Marriage and Succession. It is this little corner which we have not been able to invade so far and it is the intention of those who desire to have article 35 as part of the Constitution to bring about that change. Therefore, the argument whether we should attempt such a thing seems to me somewhat misplaced for the simple reason that we have, as a matter of fact, covered the whole lot of the field which is covered by a uniform Civil Code in this country. It is therefore too late now to ask the question whether we could do it. As I say, we have already done it.

My second observation is to give them an assurance. I quite realise their feelings
in the matter, but I think they have read rather too much into article 35, which merely
proposes that the State shall endeavour to secure a civil code for the citizens of the
country. It does not say that after the Code is framed the State shall enforce it upon
all citizens merely because they are citizens. It is perfectly possible that the future
parliament may make a provision byway of making a beginning that the Code shall
apply only to those who make a declaration that they are prepared to be bound by it,
so that in the initial stage the application of the Code may be purely voluntary.
Parliament may feel the ground by some such method. This is not a novel method. It
was adopted in the Shariat Act of 1937 when it was applied to territories other than
the North-West Frontier Province. The law said that here is a Shariat law which should be applied to Mussulmans who wanted that he should be bound by the Shariat Act should go to an officer of the state, make a declaration that he is willing to be bound by it, and after he has made that declaration the law will bind him and his successors. It would be perfectly possible for parliament to introduce a provision of that sort; so that the fear which my friends have expressed here will be altogether nullified. I therefore submit that there is no substance in these amendments and I oppose them.”

By a majority of 5:4, the fundamental rights sub-committee headed by” Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel held that “the provision was outside the scope of fundamental rights and therefore the Uniform Civil Code was made less important than freedom of religion.”. Thus the Constituent Assembly in its wisdom decided to adopt the provision of state endeavoring to have a Uniform Civil Code under Article 44 of the Constitution of India i.e. Directive Principles of State Policy which are non binding in nature but act as policy guidance for the Indian state.

Hindu Code Bill

The B.N. Rau Committee was setup in 1941 with a view to codify the Hindu Personal Laws and that committee recommended a codified Hindu law, which would give equal rights to women in keeping with the modern trends of society. However, it must be mentioned that its focus was primarily on reforming the Hindu law in accordance with the scriptures. The committee reviewed the 1937 Act and recommended a civil code of marriage and succession for Hindus. After much study, it presented the government with two draft Bills on March 1942 regarding intestate succession and marriage. Unable to clinch the matter, the Rau Committee was revived and reconstituted once more in 1944; it finally sent its report to the Indian Parliament with a draft Bill in February 1947. The Rau Committee report dealt comprehensively with Intestate and Testamentary Succession including Maintenance, Marriage and Divorce, Minority and Guardianship and Adoption.

As procedure demanded, the draft went before a select committee again, this time
chaired by Ambedkar himself. When it finally came up for discussion in February 1951, India was already a free nation. Discussions continued, but were endless, the Hindu Code Bill lapsed and was re-submitted only in 1952. The provisions, had to be broken up into separate parts, apparently to nudge through the radical changes in smaller steps, rather than as a whole scale transformation. The Hindu Marriage Bill was passed in May 1955, and the Hindu Succession Act in June 1956. Later, the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Bill was passed in August 1956 and the final component,
the Adoptions and Maintenance Bill in December 1956.

The Hindu Marriage Bill outlawed polygamy and contained provisions dealing with inter caste marriages and divorce procedures; the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Bill had as its main thrust the adoption of girls, which till then had been little practised; the Hindu Succession Bill placed daughters on the same footing as widows and sons where the inheritance of family property was concerned. These bills aroused strong opposition from the Hindu nationalists. In Parliament N.C. Chatterjee, the Hindu Mahasabha leader, and S.P. Mokerjee protested vehemently against what they took to be a threat to file stability and integrity of traditional forms of marriage and the family in Hindu society. However, one of the most vehement critics of the government's proposals was Swami Karpatriji, a sanyasi who belonged to the Dandis, one of the orders founded by Shankara. The Hindu Code bills were thus opposed by the Hindu Mahasabha and other sections of society however due to lack of widespread support they were steamrolled and adopted by the parliament of India in a much diluted form. Madhu Kishwar has a good critique of how the hindu personal laws were codified despite opposition while other communities personal laws were left out. One can read her critique in EPW here.

Judicial backing of the Uniform Civil Code

Courts in India have repeatedly backed and nudged the governments to bring uniform civil code. In Mohd Ahmed Khan vs Shah Bano Begum (1985), the Supreme Court of India went to observe that UCC help national integration by removing disparate loyalties to laws which have conflicting ideologies. The said judgement was however overruled by the Rajiv Gandhi’s government. In another case of Jorden Diengdeh Vs SS Chopra (1985) where on the conflict between Indian Divorce Act and Hindu Marriage act for annulment of marriage the court observed that there is “totally unsatisfactory state of affairs consequent on the lack of a uniform civil code” but, the court left it for the Ministry of Law and Justice to take the action they may deem fit. In Sarla Mudgal Vs Union of India (1994), wherein a Hindu man had converted to Islam to solemnize second marriage, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while deciding the matter stated that, “When more than 80% of the citizens (the Court was referring to Hindus here) have already been brought under the codified personal law there is no justification whatsoever to keep in abeyance the introduction of a uniform civil code.”

In Pannalal Bansilal Pitti Vs State of AP (1995), the Hon’ble SC held that “The directive principles of the Constitution visualise diversity and attempt to foster uniformity among people of different faiths. A uniform law, though is highly desirable, enacting it in one go perhaps may be counterproductive to unity and integrity of the nation.” The Court was not completely against uniformity in laws, but cautioned that it must be a gradual progressive change. In 2003, John Vallamattom case, A three-judge referred to Sarla Mudgal, and said that marriage, succession and similar matters of a secular character cannot be brought within the right to freedom of religion under Article 25. The court reiterated Sarla Mudgal by saying that a UCC will help national integration by removing the contradictions based on ideologies.

In Shabnam Hashmi v Union of India (2014), a case involving adoption, the court said that the Juvenile Justice Act is a small step in reaching the goal of a uniform civil code, by laying down procedure for a prospective parent to adopt an eligible child. The court said that personal beliefs and faiths, must be honoured, but legislation cannot be stultified by personal law. The most recent judgment of Shayara Bano v Union of India(2018) involving an archaic practice of triple talaq reinitiated the conversation around religion, personal law, and uniform civil code. The issue of UCC came up because one of the counsels brought up the Constituent Assembly
debates in his submissions, and said that the intent of the Constituent Assembly was to protect ‘personal laws’ of different communities by elevating their stature to that of other fundamental rights. The Court concluded that this leads to the clear understanding, that the Constitution requires the State to provide for a uniform civil code, to remedy and assuage maladies.

Even Justice Pratibha Singh of the Delhi High Court in her judgement dt 07th July 2021 stated that, “In modern Indian society, which is gradually becoming homogenous, the traditional barriers of religion, community and caste are slowly dissipating. The youth of India belonging to various communities, tribes, castes or religions who solemnise their marriages ought not to be forced to struggle with issues arising due to conflicts in various personal laws, especially in relation to marriage and divorce.”. Hon’ble Ladyship further goes on to state that “The hope expressed in Article 44 of the Constitution that the State shall secure for its citizens a Uniform Civil Code ought not to remain a mere hope. More than three decades have passed since then and it is unclear as to what steps have been taken in this regard till date. Accordingly, let the copy of the present judgment be communicated to the Secretary, Ministry of Law & Justice, Government of India, for necessary action as deemed appropriate”.

21st Law Commission of India Report (2018)

The 21st Law Commission of India submitted its report on “Reform of Family Law” on 31st August 2018. The law commission of India gave a comprehensive of the issues that would be involved by enacting of a Uniform Civil Code. The first and the most vociferous opposition to it will come from the Muslim side which will object to its Muslim personal laws and practices like Polygamy, Talaq to be emancipated under a secular law like UCC. The Muslim personal laws derive sanction from Shariat as is also stated in The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937. The bringing of UCC will naturally erode the power of All India Muslim Personal Law Board thus one can expect stiff opposition as and when the UCC is brought to parliament. Other religious personal laws like the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 & the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936 would also stand abolished. Thus there would one civil law for religious communities in India which would in true sense fulfill the egalitarian objective of our constitution that talks about equality before law and equal protection of law.

Tribals Rights & 6th Schedule

Apart from objections which would come from other religious communities, the other objections could come from tribal communities in India. The 21st Law Commission in its report stated as follows:

“1.19. The sixth schedule of the constitution of India provides certain protections to a number of states. While some tribal laws in fact protect matriarchal systems of family organisations some of these also preserve provisions which are not in the interest of women. There are further provisions that allow for complete autonomy on matter of family law which can also be adjudicated by the local panchayats which once again, follow their own procedures. Thus, while framing a law it has to be borne in mind and cultural diversity cannot be compromised to the extent that our urge for uniformity itself becomes a reason for threat to the territorial integrity of the nation.”

The law commission of India states that India is a diverse country and the problems of women are very often class, caste and community specific. In Madhu Kishwar & Ors v. State of Bihar the Court had observed that:

“In face of these divisions and visible barricades put up by the sensitive tribal people valuing their own customs, traditions and usages, judicially enforcing on them the principles of personal laws applicable to others, on an elitist approach or on equality principle, by judicial activism, is a difficult and mind-boggling effort. ...it is not desirable to declare the customs of tribal inhabitants as offending Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution and each case must be examined when full facts are placed before the Court.”

The Law Commission of India report further goes on state that While there is certainly a desire for change, there is also equally a need to acknowledge the hindrances to any endeavours to institute a uniform civil code. The first foreseeable problem with feasibility is with respect to the sixth schedule of the Constitution. Articles 371 (A) to (I) and the sixth schedule of the constitution of
India provides certain protections or rather exceptions to the states of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, Andhra Pradesh and Goa with respect to family law. Rather Article 371-A & Article 371-G states that in so far as State of Mizoram and State of Nagaland is concerned they have special protection for rights, cultural practices and law passed by the parliament can only apply if their respective assemblies approve it. The NDA allies like Mizo National Front and NPP in Nagaland have already announced their opposition to the UCC.

Further the 6th Schedule of the Constitution of India provides for autonomous districts and autonomous regions. The District Councils and Regional Councils have legislative competence to deal with the subjects like inheritance, succession, marriage and divorce as well as administration of justice. Such Councils can frame Rules for laying down the procedure for trial of suits and criminal cases and for execution/enforcement of Orders and Judgments in Tribal areas of the north east. Many also argue that a uniform code may advance the cause of national integration, however, this may not necessarily be the case when cultural difference inform people‘s identity and its preservation guarantees the territorial integrity of the nation. Further, the law has to be within the framework of the Constitution. The constitutional exception has to be harmonised and a fair and just balance is to be struck, keeping in
view societal interests. For instance, Garo and Khasi tribes of Meghalaya are
matriarchate, that is, they follow a female line of descent and property is inherited by the youngest daughter. Among the Garos, the son-in law comes to live with his wife‘s parents.

Even among the tribal communities across North East India and other parts of India polygamy and polyandry is practiced thus there could be opposition from within the wider Hindu fold as well. The Akalis and the SGPC and Punjab have also objected to UCC stating that Sikhs want the implementation of Anand Marriage Act recoganising its practice of Anand Karaj wedding ceremonies in Gurudwaras even though the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and other personal law applies to Hindu, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains alike. The root of this sentiment in Punjab is based on identity politics of Sikhism being a separate religion rather than being considered as part of the wider Hindu fold. The bringing in of UCC will ignite such debates and opposition from the tribals as well as identity politics in Punjab.

HUF Tax Debate

According to the colonial interpretation, “HUF was a joint family that was held together by strong ties of kinship and entailed a variety of joint property relations among the members”. Hence, a legal status was given to the HUF as a trading entity. In the debate on the Super Tax Bill 1917, it was proposed that HUF be recognized as a distinct category for taxation, in order to overcome the problem of the dual characteristics of being a family and a business entity. This interpretation led to the
recognition of the HUF as a separate tax entity which was subsequently incorporated into the Income Tax Act. 1922. In present times, HUF is neither congruent with corporate governance, nor is it conducive for the tax regime and thus HUF under the Income Tax Regime is given certain exemptions. The 21st Law Commission of India report stated on the said issue as below:

“5.31 In Direct Taxes Enquiry Committee Report 1971, i.e., Wanchoo Committee clearly stated that the institution of HUF has been used for tax avoidance. Thus, the institution of HUF was a so called gift‘ by the British when they could not comprehend the complex socio-economic structure of the Indian families. However, today, when it has been seventy-two years since independence, it is high time that it is understood that justifying this institution on the ground of deep-rooted sentiments at the cost of the country’s revenues may not be judicious.”

In view of the same it would be prudent for Government of India to consult all sections of society and provide exemptions as may needed like in the case of Tribals or the HUF in the draft of the UCC. Further the Supreme Court of India has already reserved the judgement on Same Sex Marriage rights of LGBTQ community and in a likelihood if the SC would be to grant them these rights then the endavour of the government should be to frame a separate chapter under UCC law codifying the rights of the LGBTQ community on the principles of equality before law. As a lawyer and a constitutionalist someone who believes in equality before law for all citizens irrespective of caste, creed, religion or sex i have submitted my suggestions to the Law Commission on how the LGBTQ rights could be codified under UCC. The draft of my suggestions are annexed below.

It must be stated over here that the quest for Uniform Civil Code in India is based out egalitarian principles of Constitution of India of equality before law and that UCC is a constitutionalist project that treats everyone equally rather than being a hindutva project which a section of intellectual tend to portray. States like Goa in India already have a uniform civil code and Dr Bibek Debroy who is part PM’s Economic Advisory Council has wonderfully extrapolated on the same in his recent article. As the 22nd law commission of India readies to submit its report one would hope that upcoming Uniform Civil Code as and when its brough it just and equal while considering necessary exemptions if so needed. It is time India embarked on the secular exercise of one nation and one law.

Notes

1. Constituent Assembly Debates On 23 November, 1948

2. Nehru And The Hindu Code Bill - Outlook

3. Codified Hindu Law: Myth and Reality - Madhu Kishwar in EPW (1994)

4. One Nation, One Law - Bibek Debroy, Outlook

5. Contention between Uniform Civil Code & The Principle of Secularism in the Indian Constitution - Gauravi Mishra, LLM, Symbiosis, Nagpur

6. UCC & Judicial History - Part 2 by Ashwini Tallur, Associate at the Centre for Law and Policy Research

7. Uniform Civil Code shouldn’t remain a mere hope in Constitution: Delhi High Court
   

Law Commission Suggestions By Navroop Singh

175KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Suggestions by Navroop Singh Advocate to Law Commission of India on incorporation of LGBTQ rights in the Uniform Civil Code

Download