Uniform Civil Code: Take advice from earlier law panels

The 21st Law Commission, headed by Justice Balbir Singh Chauhan, a retired Supreme Court judge, was entrusted with a similar task. Its 31 August 2018 consultation paper, ‘Reforming family law’, said it was published on the basis of the overwhelming response it had received. The reasons cited by the 22nd Law Commission for introducing fresh consultations include a gap of more than four years from the previous paper, the relevance and importance of the subject and various court orders on the subject since then. Notably, the 2018 paper concluded that UCC was neither necessary nor feasible. However, it also suggested detailed and comprehensive changes to each individual law. The paper examined each provision with the lens of gender justice to present updates that reflect today’s times and ensure that members of all communities are treated equally.

The earlier commission was also entrusted with the same task. If the recommendations he made were found to be flawed or not in line with his legislative agenda, he should have said so. Its own apex body on legal issues had clearly stated in 2018 that UCC is neither needed nor feasible, so why would the administration seek more views on implementing the UCC? This takes credibility away from the cited reason for the nearly half-a-decade gap.

Furthermore, it should be the responsibility of the government to explain clearly what the 2018 consultation paper failed to address, what is the reason for restarting the discussion on UCC implementation, and what changes to Indian law are under consideration. that affect.

Anyone interested in the ideas of gender justice, pluralism, diversity, inclusion and equality for all should demand that the government, instead of seeking new suggestions, begin the process of implementing the changes recommended in ‘Family Law Reform’ Do. Indian opposition parties, civil society and other stakeholders need to hold the government to account on this rather than falling into the political trap of opposing the UCC and thereby giving the ruling party an opportunity to portray them as resistant to change.

The government had plenty of time to implement at least some of the report’s recommendations. The previous exercise had cost taxpayers money, time and energy, but now we find that the government wants to restart the process. Its search for suggestions at a time when its second term in office is coming to an end suggests that politics may have played a role.

The demand for UCC, initially raised by feminists, was later taken up as a political cause by the country’s Hindu right. In the 1950s, family law reform for Hindus, which was opposed by the right-wing, prompted the right-wing to adopt the UCC as a point of Hindu-Muslim dichotomy, as outlined in India’s Directive Principles of State Policy, because Family law of Muslims is based on Sharia. , which has been branded as regressive and used as scare tactics. Although the story that polygamy permitted by Islam will lead to a population explosion among Muslims has been debunked by the data, it retains its political charge.

Indian Muslims, however, may be more wary than others about the size of the UCC, given how a Muslim-specific law has already criminalized a form of oral talaq, and this means legal consequences. It is important to note that the opposition UCC in India does not come only from conservative Muslim areas. Representatives of tribals, Northeast residents, Parsis, Sikhs, Christians and others have raised objections on how the adoption of the UCC might affect them.

The implementation of UCC has been a matter of controversy in India for decades. To move forward, we must refer to the 2018 report, whose comprehensive recommendations cover the practices of all religious groups and communities. They also suggest reforms to the Special Marriage Act, under which citizens can marry without reference to any religious order, authority or rite.

The 21st Law Commission has provided us with a template that sensitively and comprehensively addresses deficiencies in various aspects of family law in all our diverse practices, as traditionally upheld by various religions, communities and groups. The paper certainly has some shortcomings that need to be addressed, such as marriage equality for those of us who identify as LGBTQIA+. With inclusiveness as a principle, wider definitions of ‘family’ can be adopted which include ‘chosen’ families, live-in relationships etc. But far-reaching legal changes to be equitable, especially for women, have already been outlined by a government panel. The 22nd Law Commission should have thrown light on this.

So let us ask the government to start implementing the previous recommendations. As a preliminary step, perhaps it could do away with tax exemptions for Hindu Undivided Families (HUFs). At one stroke, it would strengthen the credibility of the claim that the UCC is about equality and justice for all.

UPDATE: July 04, 2023, 11:54 PM IST