Law Commission’s decision to seek opinion from the public on the idea of uniform civil code What appears to be a political initiative aimed at bringing the potentially divisive issue into focus ahead of next year’s general election. The commission, the 22nd such panel, claimed that years had passed since similar views were sought by the previous panel, and a fresh effort was needed to elicit diverse views. The 21st Commission had issued a consultation paper in 2018 which clearly stated that a Uniform Civil Code was “neither necessary nor desirable” at that point of time. In a well-thought-out document, it was then argued that the focus of initiatives to reform various personal laws should be to eliminate all forms of discrimination rather than attempt to bring about uniformity in the laws governing different religions. The document was progressive in nature, as it emphasized non-discrimination over uniformity, and considered aspects of personal law such as marriage, divorce, inheritance and adoption, rather than imposing a single set of rules on society. There can be various means of controlling. , This would require the removal of discriminatory provisions, particularly those affecting women, and adoption of some of the broader norms enshrined in equality. Nothing significant has happened to warrant a fresh look, except perhaps a political necessity for the existing system to bring the issue into the electoral arena.
A Uniform Civil Code for the entire country is indeed a lofty goal, but the question whether introducing one for all aspects of personal law would lead to curtailment of freedom of religion has been a part of the debate. BR Ambedkar considered it desirable, but was in favor of it being voluntary. It is possible that a uniform code can be adopted without offending any religion, but the concept raises fears among sections of minorities that their religious beliefs may be seen as the source of their personal laws. In fraught times such as the present, a common code would inevitably be seen as imposition by the majority. Basic reforms can be given priority – such as raising the marriageable age to 18 for all communities and genders. Initiating a ‘no-fault’ divorce process and allowing dissolution of marriage on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown, and having common criteria for post-divorce division of property were other matters that the previous commission had debated. Within the laws of each community, it would first be desirable to incorporate universal principles of equality and non-discrimination and to eliminate practices based on taboos and stereotypes.