A contested code for reform

The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) – proposed and consistently supported by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) – continues to divide opinion. Recently, Prime Minister Narendra Modi noted that the UCC and the ‘One Nation, One Election’ process are the party’s two “unfinished” agendas. With a constitutional amendment bill linked with women’s reservation and the delimitation of constituencies defeated in the Lok Sabha, the UCC discourse may now be put on the back burner, but not for too long.

While the government has made its intent to implement the UCC clear, it is noteworthy that in 2023, the 22nd Law Commission sought fresh suggestions from stakeholders, including the general public and religious institutions. The Supreme Court of India has made a strong case for the UCC, suggesting it would strengthen national integration and remove diverse loyalties, thus encouraging social cohesion. The Constitution has a provision for the Code in Article 44 as a Directive Principle of State Policy, which says: ‘The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India’. Commenting on a recent case, the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant called the UCC a “constitutional ambition” that has nothing to do with religion.

However, the UCC has always been seen through the lens of religion, with debates preceding Independence. The Lex Loci Report of 1840 emphasised the need for uniformity in the codification of Indian laws, but recommended keeping the personal laws of Hindus and Muslims outside that codification. Queen Victoria’s Proclamation of 1858 promised non-interference in Indian religious practices. However, the British, with the help of Hindu social reformers, brought in laws relevant to the Hindu community. Significant reforms included the Married Women’s Property Act of 1923, which formalised Hindu women’s right to property.

In 1941, the British established the B N Rau Committee, then known as the Hindu Laws Committee, tasked primarily to examine the necessity of common Hindu laws. The committee recommended a codified Hindu law with assured equal rights for women in the community.

After Independence, the first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, strongly rejected the idea of separate civil laws for religious communities. But considering the sharp, post-Partition religious polarisation, he must have thought it prudent to bring only the Hindu society under a uniform law. The government did what the British had done – leave the personal matters to personal laws of the relevant religious group and bring the criminal matters under the Common Criminal Code.

The Rau Committee report was implemented as the Hindu Code Bill, applicable only to the community. Several leaders, including the then-President of India, Rajendra Prasad, staunchly opposed this move. They contended that reforms in personal laws will have to be propelled by individual religious groups through internal social reforms rather than through external laws. But finally, in the larger interest of reforms in the Hindu society, the Hindu Code Bill was accepted. Since then, the Supreme Court and several socio-political and religious leaders have felt the need to do away with regressive and archaic personal laws such as the triple talaq, through legislative processes. Incidentally, the Hindu Code Bill and other civil laws also need a relook.

In a way, the UCC is meant to replace various laws that are inconsistent with each other and are currently applicable to different religious groups. These laws include the Hindu Marriage Act, Hindu Succession Act, Indian Christian Marriages Act, Indian Divorce Act, and Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act. Certain personal laws like the Sharia (Islamic laws) are not codified and draw on individual interpretation by the clergy, based on religious scriptures.

The proposals in the UCC include equal rights for sons and daughters over inheritance of property and gender- and religion-neutral laws on wills, charity, guardianship, and sharing of children’s custody.

Unlike the ‘Christian’ West, rigid Islamic countries, and the ‘liberal’ Europe, India does not see religions as conflicting; instead, it respects all of them as different paths to the same ultimate truth. The Hindu society has adapted to change and given up many practices that were socially divisive, abhorrent, and carried no scriptural sanctity. Other religious groups also need to adapt with time. Any suggestion for change or academically evidenced criticism should not be seen as an infringement of religious rights by Hindus or Islamophobia by the Muslim leadership. Civil law or fundamental human rights cannot be a subject of religious obligation or treated as munificence of religious hierarchies.

The writer reads between the lines on big national and international developments from his vantage point in the BJP and the RSS.

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.