© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
Uttarakhand Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami tabled the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) Bill in the state Assembly on Tuesday. This came after the state-appointed committee led by retired Supreme Court judge Justice Ranjana P Desai submitted its draft on February 2.
The law will govern personal law subjects such as marriage, inheritance, divorce, and adoption uniformly across communities. The enactment of the UCC was one of the BJP’s key poll promises in the state ahead of the 2022 Assembly elections. Similar Bills may soon be placed before the Gujarat and Assam assemblies as well.
The promise to pass the UCC stems from Article 44 of the Constitution of India — a directive principle saying, “The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.” This Article was adopted by the Constituent Assembly on November 23, 1948, after a spirited debate. What were the arguments for and against the UCC?
Mohammad Ismail Khan, an Assembly member from the All India Muslim League (AIML, the Indian faction of the pre-Partition Muslim League), opened the debate by suggesting an addition to Article 35 (which would later become Article 44) of the Draft Constitution. He pushed to include the proviso: “Provided that any group, section, or community of people shall not be obliged to give up its own personal law in case it has such a law.”
Ismail argued that a secular state should not interfere with long-standing religious practices as it could breed discontent and subvert harmony in the country.
B Pocker Sahib Bahadur also spoke in favour of the amendment forwarded by Ismail, saying, “If such a body as this (Constituent Assembly) interferes with the religious rights and practices, it will be tyrannous.”
Another AIML member Naziruddin Ahmad proposed to introduce a similar, but more descriptive proviso: “Provided that the personal law of any community which has been guaranteed by the statute shall not be changed except with the previous approval of the community ascertained in such manner as the Union Legislature may determine by law.”
Ahmad argued that the UCC would clash with the freedom of religion under Article 19 (which would later become Article 25) of the Draft Constitution. He claimed that the UCC would “undo” the freedom of religion by giving the state the room to “break the guarantees given in article 19”.
Ahmad believed that the implementation of uniform civil laws was inevitable.
He, however, stressed that any interference with personal laws should be “gradual and must progress with the advance of time” and must be done “with the consent of the people concerned”.
Congress members supported a uniform civil code
K M Munshi, a Congress member and member of the Constituent Assembly Drafting Committee, opposed the view that the UCC was tyrannical. He said that while the state must endeavour not to interfere in religious practice, certain matters should be governed by secular legislation, not religion.
Munshi pointed out that if matters like inheritance and succession were accepted under the umbrella of personal religious laws, then women would never be treated equally despite the fundamental right against discrimination. “Therefore, there is no reason why there should not be a civil code throughout the territory of India.”
Alladi Krishnaswamy Iyer, another member of the Drafting Committee, spoke against the notion that the UCC would cause discontent and disharmony. Instead, he said, the aim of the UCC was to achieve unity and amity by removing factors that contributed to differences between communities.
Dr B R Ambedkar, the Chairman of the Drafting Committee, underlined the fact that uniform laws were in place for “almost every aspect of human relationship”, barring the “little corner” of personal laws relating to marriage and succession, which the UCC is meant to address. He also said it was too late to argue whether the UCC should be implemented or not as, to a large extent, it had already been implemented.
Ambedkar, however, provided certain assurances to concerned members. Focusing on the language of the Article, he said the inclusion of the words “The State shall endeavour…” protected the interests of concerned communities. He argued that the wording ensured that the UCC could not be imposed on all citizens, and could only apply to those who make a declaration that they are prepared to be bound by the code.
With these closing arguments, the Assembly voted against the amendments proposed by Mohammad Ismail Khan and Naziruddin Ahmad, and adopted Article 44 of the Constitution as we know it today.
