[ad_1]
NEW DELHI: The contentious issue of Uniform Civil Code appeared relegated to the background until the second week of this month when the Law Commission dusted it off and brought it to the centrestage.
In a significant move, the new chief of the Law Commission, Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi (retired), decided to seek public opinion on the issue which has remained inert despite being part of the Constitution‘s Directive Principles and constitutional court verdicts lamenting the executive’s inaction on this score.
The 30-day window set by the commission for public comments has since been advertised by many, individuals and groups, on social media, re-energising the theme that appeared to be going nowhere. Justice Awasthi’s predecessor Justice B S Chauhan had held that the situation was not conducive for enactment of UCC.
In its ‘consultation paper’ released in August 2018, the then law panel headed by retired Supreme Court judge Justice Chauhan cited B R Ambedkar making a case for UCC in his Constituent Assembly debates. Justice Chauhan said UCC was much desired but lack of consensus may not be conducive enough to bring a law for “its potential repercussion, untested in India”.
The law panel,A consensus eluded the Constituent Assembly primarily because members feared that UCC “would coexist alongside personal law systems, while others thought it was to replace personal law” instead, proposed a step-by-step approach, where the government was expected to incrementally work for uniformity in laws dealing with marriage, divorce, adoption and inheritance.
Quoting Ambedkar from the Constituent Assembly debates, the 2018 consultation paper said, “Ambedkar’s position in the Constituent Assembly debates towards a uniform civil code was that such a code would be desirable but for the moment would remain voluntary.”
Faced with opposition from a few members, mainly Muslims, of the Constituent Assembly, Ambedkar recommended gradualism. “It is perfectly possible that the future Parliament may make a provision by way 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 so that the fear which my friends have expressed here will be altogether nullified. 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 Mussalmans 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,” Ambedkar had said.
“Before the Shariat Act 1937, Muslims in many parts were governed by Hindu law and even Marumakkathayam system of inheritance and succession which had been prevalent in many of the southern Indian states,” Ambedkar further said.
A consensus eluded the Constituent Assembly primarily because members feared that UCC “would coexist alongside personal law systems, while others thought it was to replace personal law”. There were also apprehensions that it would lead to denial of freedom of religion. This led the Constituent Assembly to safely place the matter of UCC under Article 44 among the Directive Principles.
Among other significant arguments put forth by the law panel in its consultation paper in support of UCC was the Ahmed Khan vs Shah Bano judgment. “The court in Shah Bano observed, ‘Article 44 of our Constitution has remained a dead letter. There is no evidence of any official activity for framing a common civil code for the country. A common civil code will help the cause of national integration by removing disparate loyalties to laws which have conflicting ideologies. It is the state which is entrusted with the duty of securing a uniform civil code for the citizens of the country and, unquestionably, it has the legislative competence to do so. A beginning has to be made if the Constitution is to have any meaning,'” the paper said.
In a significant move, the new chief of the Law Commission, Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi (retired), decided to seek public opinion on the issue which has remained inert despite being part of the Constitution‘s Directive Principles and constitutional court verdicts lamenting the executive’s inaction on this score.
The 30-day window set by the commission for public comments has since been advertised by many, individuals and groups, on social media, re-energising the theme that appeared to be going nowhere. Justice Awasthi’s predecessor Justice B S Chauhan had held that the situation was not conducive for enactment of UCC.
In its ‘consultation paper’ released in August 2018, the then law panel headed by retired Supreme Court judge Justice Chauhan cited B R Ambedkar making a case for UCC in his Constituent Assembly debates. Justice Chauhan said UCC was much desired but lack of consensus may not be conducive enough to bring a law for “its potential repercussion, untested in India”.
The law panel,A consensus eluded the Constituent Assembly primarily because members feared that UCC “would coexist alongside personal law systems, while others thought it was to replace personal law” instead, proposed a step-by-step approach, where the government was expected to incrementally work for uniformity in laws dealing with marriage, divorce, adoption and inheritance.
Quoting Ambedkar from the Constituent Assembly debates, the 2018 consultation paper said, “Ambedkar’s position in the Constituent Assembly debates towards a uniform civil code was that such a code would be desirable but for the moment would remain voluntary.”
Faced with opposition from a few members, mainly Muslims, of the Constituent Assembly, Ambedkar recommended gradualism. “It is perfectly possible that the future Parliament may make a provision by way 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 so that the fear which my friends have expressed here will be altogether nullified. 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 Mussalmans 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,” Ambedkar had said.
“Before the Shariat Act 1937, Muslims in many parts were governed by Hindu law and even Marumakkathayam system of inheritance and succession which had been prevalent in many of the southern Indian states,” Ambedkar further said.
A consensus eluded the Constituent Assembly primarily because members feared that UCC “would coexist alongside personal law systems, while others thought it was to replace personal law”. There were also apprehensions that it would lead to denial of freedom of religion. This led the Constituent Assembly to safely place the matter of UCC under Article 44 among the Directive Principles.
Among other significant arguments put forth by the law panel in its consultation paper in support of UCC was the Ahmed Khan vs Shah Bano judgment. “The court in Shah Bano observed, ‘Article 44 of our Constitution has remained a dead letter. There is no evidence of any official activity for framing a common civil code for the country. A common civil code will help the cause of national integration by removing disparate loyalties to laws which have conflicting ideologies. It is the state which is entrusted with the duty of securing a uniform civil code for the citizens of the country and, unquestionably, it has the legislative competence to do so. A beginning has to be made if the Constitution is to have any meaning,'” the paper said.
#UCC #part #Constitution #verdicts #called #India #News
