The uniform confusion code

The observation made by Justice Khare along with the judgement has created quite a bit of confusion, not only in the minds of ordinary citizens but even among media circles, exceptions being the legal minds. To a lay reader it would appear as if an unjust practice of the Christian personal law, based either on the Bible or law of the Church, was prevalent in the Christian community which was now being redressed by the SC and that while redressing the injustice, the SC suggested that the government 8220;endeavour8221; to implement the UCC.

It needs to be clarified first of all that ISA is a legacy of British rule and since the British were associated with Christianity, the law came to be known as the Christian Personal Law. The ISA of 1925 itself was more or less a re-enactment of the 1865 Succession Act promulgated by the British, which in turn was the outcome of the British Charitable Uses Act of 1735, prevalent in England.

It would be worth one8217;s while to find out why exactly no one had so far paid any serious attention to Section 118, or for that matter other sections of the ISA. Was it because not many people in the government really bothered about the set of laws affecting Christians negatively or the community itself made only sporadic attempts at getting their rights? This would then indicate that the community has always shown its readiness to abide by laws, even if unjust and discriminatory, prevalent in the country; and that, until the recent attacks on its churches, nuns and priests by certain fundamentalist groups, it always felt as much part of the land and as safe as anybody else.

There were other problems with the ISA besides Section 118 which on the insistence of some enlightened Christians were redressed last year when Section 32 protecting a Christian widow8217;s property rights was amended along with Section 213, relating to the need for probate of a will made by a Christian before it could be executed. It has to be emphasised here, even at the risk of being repetitive, that the community has not been seen as resisting any proposals for change in personal laws.

A case in point is the Indian Christian Marriage Act. The Jo-int Women8217;s Programme had been working towards its amendment for more than 20 years and actually faced problems from the government more than anywhere else. It is true that the Catholic Church does not recognise divorce on any ground a marriage can be only nullified or annulled if found fit under Church laws. It still went along with other churches and women8217;s groups and agreed on 8220;divorce through mutual consent8221; and for the 8220;civil effects8221; of such a divorce. This was finally passed by Parliament two years ago and is now known as the Indian Divorce Amendment Act.

One major area, however, where discrimination against Christians still persists 8212; not because of Christian personal law or any British law 8212; is because of an unjust Presidential Order of 1950 by which the moment a Dalit converts to Christianity, he/she loses the privileges and perks reserved for those of the same caste or social class. This goes totally against the spirit and writ of Article 14 of the Constitution. Will the Supreme Court kindly draw the attention of the government and Parliament to how a certain section of the community is still discriminated against 53 years after the order?