Article 44 of The Indian constitution reads “State shall endeavor to provide for it’s citizens a Uniform Civil Code throughout the territory of India”. Starting from Shah Bano to Supreme court’s suo-motu of discrimination against Muslim women, things have always stressed and reminded us the need to mend the “Shall” in the statement to “Should”.
While many think Uniform Civil Code overrides all the personal laws and is a threat to article 25, they are to realize that Uniform Civil Code is no trammel to their Right to practice Religion. Article 44 basically stresses the disconnection between Religion and Personal law in a civilized society. Article 25 guarantees religious freedom and article 44 aims at depriving Religion from social relations and personal Law. As long as we are aware of the fact that, article 25 is not an “Absolute Right”, but is subject to public order, morality and health, We make sure that Religion and Practicing religion without reforming it is always subservient to Right to Life and Right to Dignity.
I’ve heard arguments whose essence is that the introduction of a Uniform Civil Code by the state is against the Paragon of Democracy, which fail to notice that we can not call ourselves democratic, if we do not have a uniform law for everyone. Being Secular will always be a Fictional Concept in Constitution, as long as we neglect a Uniform Civil Code and act lethargic while calling for One.
Of Course, I seem a Rawgabbit if I speak much about Muslim Personal Law. But I’m not so Innocent to not know that There are majorly 7 schools of Jurisprudence in Islam (with Hanafi, Malaki, Shafii and two others from Sunni and Two from Shia each having a distinction). So the question is as to Which law must be followed by whom. The sheer diversity of personal Laws in addition to the induction to which they cling, will allow laws to reconcile, only if we educate people about the need of Uniform Civil Code. Legal Pluralism, beyond the shadow of doubt, is unwanted when it comes to social entitlements like Marriage, Divorce and Succession.
People in Jurisprudence often seem very worried about Uniform Civil Code, right from Supreme court lamenting that article 44 remained a dead letter, to CJI calling for intellectuals across India to see how Uniform Civil Code is being implemented in Goa.
I personally opine that Supreme court would have made a point, in it’s 2017 judgement, while outlawing the Triple Talaq, to state that Right to dignity and non discrimination should prevail over Right to Practice Religion. Political concerns can not be the reason to deny a Uniform Civil Code, with it’s limpid objective to initiate unification.
Neither the Uhtceare of Politicians not the inability of Throttlebottoms in law making, can and should be the Reason for not introducing a Uniform Civil Code. India did, never see at least tardigradous developments even after supreme court stressed for Uniform Civil Code, to fit certain ulterior motives.
Following Personal laws or preferring them over civil laws, even after getting civilized to this extent, is definitely an indication of us living in longinquity and in addition describes the misoneism of the “INTELLECTUALS” of India.
The India left who always lecture about the rights and privileges of people, should right away accept the Uniform Civil Code, which certain political stalwarts candiddled from us for their ulterior reasons. Of course, there exists bias definitely in every argument, thanks to recent complications and polarizations. But the bias of the Left seems stupid, especially in the arguments presented against Uniform Civil Code, where people seem quite quixotic about hating The concept of UCC. There is this argument that Uniform Civil Code could fan communal passions in the backdrop of CAA opposition. While they argue against CAA and UCC with their points which are poles of different ends. The same people who argue there’s a religious discrimination in CAA advocate the same religious and gender discrimination in Personal Laws. The same people who schooled others about modernizing and the importance of reforms and labelling misogynism to religion in case of Sabarimala, fail to maintain the same word.
Religion or practicing religion must always be subservient to life and dignity. And when Religion demands control over Civil procedures, it must be tamed and the undesirable ideals must be defenestrated from religion
