SC stirs the pot again: 145;Govt still hasn146;t set up uniform civil code146;

The last time the Supreme Court said something like this, it had to promptly clarify that it was a mere observation, not a direction. Once a...

The last time the Supreme Court said something like this, it had to promptly clarify that it was a mere observation, not a direction. Once again, the Supreme Court has come out in favour of a uniform civil code in the country8212;meaning, a law common to all communities in personal matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance and succession.

The Supreme Court8217;s observation was immediately welcomed by the BJP even though it8217;s forced by its allies to shelve its long-standing demand to meet the Constitutional goal of a common law for all religions set out in Article 44.

Except for the BJP, the consensus has been that the call for such a code should come from the Muslim community itself as and when it feels 8216;8216;ready and secure.8217;8217;

The court thinks otherwise. 8216;8216;It is a matter of regret that Article 44 of the Constitution has not been given effect to,8217;8217; said a three-member bench headed by Chief Justice of India V N Khare. 8216;8216;Parliament is still to step in for framing a common civil code in the country.8217;8217;

The bench made this observation on Monday while striking down as unconstitutional a provision of the Christian personal law which bars a person from bequeathing his property to a religious or charitable body. The court upheld the contention of the petititoner, Christian priest John Vallamattom, that the restriction on the bequest of the property was discriminatory.

Holding that 8216;8216;there is no necessary connection between religious and personal law in a civilised society,8217;8217; the court said, 8216;8216;A common civil code will help the cause of national integration by removing the contradictions based on ideologies.8217;8217;

8216;8216;National integration8217;8217; was the ground on which the apex court made a similar appeal for uniform civil code on at least two earlier occasions. In the landmark Shah Bano case of 1985, Justice Y V Chandrachud said that such a code would 8216;8216;help the cause of national integration by removing disparate loyalties to law which have conflicting ideologies.8217;8217;

Story continues below this ad

This led to a political storm prompting the Rajiv Gandhi Government to pass a law undoing the Shah Bano verdict and, in a bid to placate the Hindu sentiment as well, it got the gates of the Ayodhya temple opened after 35 years. A decade later, Justice Kuldip Singh of the Supreme Court revived the debate in the 1995 Sarla Mudgal case by actually issuing a notice to the Government to explain why it had not taken any steps to implement Article 44.

Kuldip Singh did so even though a directive principle of state policy was not really justiciable.

What was even more controversial was his observation that the separate personal laws were linked to 8216;8216;the two-nation theory.8217;8217; But, subsequently, Kuldip Singh clarified that whatever he said about the need for a uniform civil code was not binding on the Government.

In the latest instance of an appeal for uniform civil code, the bench spoke through three separate but concurring judgments delivered by Chief Justice Khare and Justices S B Sinha and Ar. Lakshmanan.