Open Access Research Article
NEED OF UNIFORM CIVIL CODE AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION.BY - ABHISHEK BHAMU
Published Paper
Article Details
NEED OF UNIFORM CIVIL CODE AND IT'S
IMPLEMENTATION.
AUTHORED BY - ABHISHEK BHAMU
1
INTRODUCTION
It
is important to recognise right away that India is a distinct nation with a
diverse geographic, religious, social, and cultural makeup. The Indian
Constitution often emphasises unity in diversity and calls attention to the
multiplicity of societal situations. The "pluralism of religions and
convictions" is acknowledged.[1]
Unfortunately,
nationalists, chauvinists, and religious zealots from all religions have
repeatedly attacked this ideal. Indian society has been heavily influenced by
religion. Religion has helped the general populace grow spiritually, but it has
also contributed to the perpetuation of many social ills when its teachings are
misunderstood. A significant contributor to this discrimination has been the
personal laws based on custom and religion of many communities. Secularism was
one of the constitutional purposes that our Constitution's drafters established
in order to address these social ills; later, it was designated as a separate
Preambular goal. In addition to being a fundamental aspect of the Constitution,
secularism serves as a pillar for achieving the lofty goal of fostering
fraternity among all Indian citizens.[2]
It is true that, except from the Preamble, no provisions of the Indian
Constitution contain the word "secularism," yet "its material
provisions are inspired by the concept of secularism."[3]
It put the idea of a welfare state in front of the entire nation when it
guaranteed all Indian citizens that the Constitution's goal is to promote
socioeconomic justice. Furthermore, the idea of welfare is wholly secular and
not founded on any religious principles.
"The
fundamental tenet of the Indian Constitution is the equality of all citizens,
and this basic equality (guaranteed by art. 14) clearly declares that a
citizen's religion has no bearing whatsoever on his fundamental rights."[4]
In
light of this context, we should now attempt to comprehend what secularism is
and how it functions. Secularism is a flexible concept with distinct meanings
in various polities. Secularism is often understood to be the state's
neutrality in matters of religion or creed. One thing unites all secular
states: neither a theocracy nor the establishment of a religion are practised
there.[5] The phrase
"non-patronizing attitude of the state to any one religion" may also
be used to describe it. [6]There is no official religion
in a secular state, and each individual has the freedom to preach, practise,
and spread any religion they choose. Thus, secularism describes how a nation's
citizens conduct their personal affairs and interact with others. It means:
"Non-spiritual, having no interest in religious or spiritual matters...
anything that is different from, opposed to, or unrelated to religion,"
according to Encyclopedia Britannica. So, a secular state is one that is unrelated
to and undevoted to religion in the western sense of the word. It refers to the
separation of church and state, or the prohibition of state participation in
any religious activity.
Secularism
is first and foremost a normative philosophy that rejects all institutionalised
religion dominance as well as these kinds of interreligious dominance.
Secularism's
hostility to intra-religious dominance is another crucial aspect. Positively,
it encourages religious freedom and equality both inside and between religions.
A state must not only reject theocracy but also refrain from having any
official, legal ties to any religion in order to be considered truly secular.
The government shouldn't associate itself with any one faith. According to
Rajeev Bhargava, neutrality or "principled distance" is necessary in
a pluralistic society.[7]
2
DISCUSSION OF THE UNIFIED CIVIL CODE-
2.1
JUSTIFICATIONS FOR A UNIFORM CIVIL CODE-
The
debate over "personal religious laws" and the need for a UCC
must be brought up in any discussion of secularism and freedom guaranteed
in the name of religion in India. Despite the fact that only a small portion of
society is now regulated by secular laws that are founded on the ideals of
"justice, equity, and good conscience," personal religious laws”
remain in place and are still in effect today. The colonial rulers saw no
reason to meddle in the "religious affairs of the natives" because
they feared hostility and local resentment. However, they did implement several
laws under the guise of "reform" to eradicate some abhorrent customs,
such as sati. In response to the demands of modern times, some personal laws,
particularly those of the Hindus, have been codified along with some
modifications, “while others continue to be applicable to the individual
religious groups in their well-established, traditional forms. Despite a
constitutional directive to the legislature to enact a uniform civil code
applicable to all religious groups which should govern all family relationships
such as marriage and divorce, maintenance, custody of children, guardianship of
children, inheritance and succession, adoption, and the like, India has a
complex system of personal laws governing inter-personal relationships as a
result of the cautious approach adopted by the successive governments as well.
Since independence more than 60 years ago, this constitutional command has gone
unheeded.”
A
nation's citizens, regardless of caste, creed, or tribe, are subject to a set
of secular laws known as the "Uniform Civil Code" The UCC has
jurisdiction over laws governing the purchase and management of property as
well as laws governing the areas such as divorce marriage, adoption of children
and also inheritance. The State must implement UCC in accordance
with art. 44 of the Indian Constitution, which can be considered as a step
forward in secularising laws relating to different religions without
destroying religious identities.
A
Uniform Civil Code provision was initially vehemently pushed into the
Fundamental Rights Art. 44. “However, a provision for UCC was added to chapter
IV pertaining to directive principles of state policy, which are not
justiciable but still essential to India's governance, in order to address the
conflicting opinions of the various members of the Constituent Assembly and to
ease the insecurity of the religious minorities.[8]”
There are many justifications put up for the adoption of a UCC. Here are a few
justifications for UCC that have been made.
ADVANCING
GENDER EQUALITY-
Another
stated goal of many who support UCC is the advancement of gender equity. The
supporters of UCC assert that gender inequity is inherent in all personal laws
in all communities. The "result of the socio-economic conditions under
which they evolved" is meant to be this. The UCC's backers firmly believe
that through ensuring gender equality, a UCC will bring about religious
revolution. Personal laws have consistently been discriminatory toward women.
Women have faced numerous challenges as a result when it comes to inheritance,
divorce, and marriage-related issues. “A common thread running through all of
India's religious personal law systems is the patriarchal dominance of men and
the unequal treatment of women. While one's religion determines which law will
apply to them regarding marriage, divorce, maintenance, guardianship, adoption,
inheritance, and succession.”[9]
A
few examples that demonstrate how severely distorted and harmful the effects of
religious legislation on women are shown below.
i.
All men and women of a particular age have
the legal right to marry, with full freedom to choose their spouse and the
ability to do so with their voluntary agreement. However, personal laws in
India are lacking in this regard. Muslim law appears to recognise the
guardian's authority to marry his minor ward. There is a solution in the form
of the "option of puberty" (right to reject marriage upon reaching
puberty), however it is only available to women. “Hindu law (Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955)” further states that acquiring agreement through coercion or
deception or vitiating consent through demonstrable insanity renders marriages
null and void.
ii.
In the modern world, where monogamy,
faithfulness, and family welfare are the norm, polygamy is another hotly
debated topic. The Indian Penal Code makes bigamy an offence, and contemporary
legislation like “The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955” forbids it (encompassing both
polygamy and polyandry).[10]However,
polygamy is an institution that is recognised and sanctioned by Muslim personal
law. It is respectfully suggested that since polygamy is largely a holdover
from the patriarchal era, it is past due for all major religions to forbid the
practise. Allowing polygamy to be practised by a small number of people who
belong to a particular religious group or tribe can cause rifts and tensions
between different religions.
iii.
The acknowledgment of the idea of unilateral
divorce is the most absurd and discriminatory aspect of Islamic divorce law.
Accordingly, the "husband can unilaterally divorce his wife without giving
any reason, even in jest or while intoxicated, without going through the court
system, and even in the wife's absence, by simply pronouncing the formula of
repudiation." On the one hand, Muslim women's right to divorce is constrained
by significant restrictions; whilst the husbands have a totalitarian ability to
exercise their rights to divorce that is essentially unhindered by any major
restrictions. After the “Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939” was passed,
a Muslim wife can now seek a divorce through the assistance of a court, however
she will first need to establish one of a select few legal grounds for divorce.
The fact that divorce is morally abhorrent in Islam and was condemned by the
Prophet does not give consolation to women because unilateral divorce is still
a common practise in many nations, including India.
iv.
Even regulations pertaining to maintenance
show an underlying bias towards women. According to the “1956 Hindu Adoptions
and Maintenance Act”, a woman has the legal right to support throughout her
lifetime. An "unchaste" wife is not entitled to separate housing and
maintenance, despite efforts to promote the conservative notion of a Hindu wife
even in this progressive statute. According to various interpretations of the
sharia, divorced women in Muslim countries are not entitled to maintenance from
their ex-husbands beyond the three-month iddat period. “The Dissolution of
Muslim Marriages Act, 1939” prohibits divorced Muslim women from requesting support
in India. The judiciary tried to eliminate this problem in the well-known Shah
Bano[11] decision by specifically
covering such Muslim women by the 1973 secular “Code of Criminal Procedure”,
which gives a wife the right to sue her husband for maintenance if he neglects
or refuses to support her. The Shah Bano[12]
case was a textbook example of how the “secular
criminal code and religious personal law clashed”. In this instance, an
elderly Muslim widow had been divorced by her husband after he used Islamic
personal law to stop paying her maintenance. But in order to give support, the
Supreme Court applied and interpreted the 1973 Criminal Procedure Code, which
is a secular statute. The judiciary deserves praise for applying the pertinent
provisions in a humane and comprehensive manner. The deliberate use of the
Quran and attempts to interpret it in a certain way, however, angered
traditional Muslims, who emphasised community concerns about the loss of
freedom of religion. In the end, the Government gave in to pressure from the
more conservative Muslims and, over the objections of progressive Muslims and
feminists, approved the “Muslim Women's (Protection of Rights in Divorce) Act,
1986”, without any consultation. By not requiring the husband to pay
maintenance, this Act benefits the husband in actuality while purporting to
protect the wife. Because Muslim women are no longer covered by “s. 125 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973”-the law that had previously protected “Shah Bano”—it is extremely
discriminatory towards them. A Muslim woman is significantly more likely to
need to file a lawsuit in order to receive any maintenance at all due to
specific provisions of the new Act. The administration of the day hastily
produced this piece of legislation through vote-bank tactics in order to
support the conservative and conventional interpretation of the Muslim law
controlling the "maintenance" of divorced women.
v.
The majority of inheritance laws were
retrograde and hostile to women. Because her position in the paternal family
was only temporary because she joined her husband's family upon marriage, the
Mitakshara branch of Hindu law denied a Hindu daughter a right by birth in the
joint family inheritance. The Hindu law of succession has been updated to grant
Hindu widows the ability to inherit their husband's estate. Due to “The Hindu
Succession Act, 1956”, which barred daughters from coparcenary ownership of
ancestral property; Hindu law was still discriminatory until recently.
Daughters were granted the status of coparceners in the family of their birth
in 2005, ending the centuries-old Hindu inheritance laws that had lost their
meaning and justifications and marking a radical but long-awaited step in
balancing freedom of equality between Hindu men and women in terms of succession. According to Islamic law, a man is typically
entitled to twice as much inheritance as a woman who has the same degree of
kinship to the deceased. Since it is a blatant example of uneven treatment,
this part of Islamic law has drawn the most vociferous criticism for its
discrimination against women. However, it is significant to note that compared
to Hindu law, Islamic law was more tolerant of women.
vi.
In terms of guardianship and custody of her
children, mothers typically hold a statutorily inferior status. The mother is
the minor's natural guardian only after the father, who is designated as the
child's first natural and legal guardian. The father is the only guardian of
the minor child's person and property in accordance with Islamic law. Adoption
is another aspect of family relationships where women encounter prejudice based
only on their marital status. Adjustments are required even here.
A Christian woman seeking a divorce from a
Christian man must demonstrate that her spouse has committed multiple offences,
such as adultery with brutality or adultery with separation. A Christian man
may also obtain a divorce if his spouse has an affair. Under the pretence of
protecting religious communities' rights, “Lawmakers has thus far avoided its
responsibilities to some of those communities' most vulnerable members—the
women. State neutrality in religious questions should not come at the expense
of women's rights. Religious reforms” shouldn't be postponed in the name of
protecting minority' rights. Women in India now have official political rights
and equality under the country's constitution. But because of the different
personal laws, women are more likely to be assaulted, denied rights, and
treated unfairly. They are treated pitifully within the family. “Personal
laws are outmoded and outdated in a modern free democracy where individual
decisions are prioritised. These laws consider women as property and are
designed to maintain men's dominance over them at all times.” Therefore, when
developing a coherent civil code, gender fairness is the main consideration.
One of the main defences against personal laws is that they discriminate
against women and try to discredit their standing in the private domain by
including out-of-date terms.[13] “The compatibility of
personal religious laws with the egalitarian values that our Constitution
upholds as well as with international declarations and accords to which India
is a party needs to be examined. The most reliable approach to guarantee gender
equality is to have a UCC. Personal laws were never regarded as a component of
the right to freedom of religion, according to Pune resident S. P. Sathe, who
has been working on establishing a Gender Equal Family Code.” According to him,
the freedom of religion, which is a basic right protected by Art. 25 of the
Indian Constitution, is not unaffected by prevailing views on morality, public
order, and public health. After discussing the two strongest arguments in
favour of UCC, it would be appropriate to quote R. M. Sahai J. from his
concurring judgement in “Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India”,[14] where he stated: “The
foundation of our civilization is religious freedom. The social fabric is shook
by even the smallest departure from it. However, religious practises that
include sacerdotal stifling of fundamental civic and material liberties and
violate human rights and dignity are to be condemned. A unified code is
therefore essential for both the protection of the oppressed and the
encouragement of national solidarity and unity.”
In his book "Muslim Personal Law," Tahir Mahmood, a leading
figure in Islamic law, also makes a compelling case for the creation of a
uniform civil code for all Indian people. He claims: "The State must stop
enforcing personal rules based on religion in order to achieve secularism. In
his words, "Instead of wasting their energies in exerting theological and
political pressure in order to secure a immunity for their traditional personal
law from the state legislative jurisdiction, the Muslims will do well to begin
exploring and demonstrating how the true Islamic laws, purged of their
time-worn and anachronistic interpretations, can enrich the common civil code
of India.”
vii.
Using the uniform civil code to make personal
laws more comprehensible, clear, and simple a legal system cannot fulfil the
lofty goal of justice distribution without simplicity and clarity in its laws,
as is common knowledge and experience. According to the history of
codification, achieving stability and certainty was one of the main goals of
codification. Diverse legislation may result in opposing viewpoints and, as a
result, ambiguity. As a requirement for any legal system, Lon Fuller's inherent
morality of law stipulates that laws must be certain. He claims that
inconsistencies in the law hinder the effectiveness of the legal system. The
same can be stated of India's diverse system of personal laws. Conflicting laws
cause uncertainty and confusion in citizens' civil relationships. Even though
it is sometimes claimed that the Special Marriage Act has successfully ended
this crisis, it is important to understand that as long as it is just one of
the numerous laws in use in India, its effectiveness will inevitably be
diminished. Additionally, very few people, typically those from the educated
class, use the “1956 Special Marriage Act”.
3 THE JUDICIARY'S
ROLE FOR CREATING A COMMON CIVIL CODE.
The government has received numerous orders from the Supreme Court to
implement the directive principle entrenched in Art. 44 of our Constitution. It
is depressing to observe that there is no political will to enforce such a
crucial progressive law change, which will guarantee gender justice, remove
obscurantist ideas and behaviours, and simultaneously advance the goal of
national unification. However, the judiciary has made concerted efforts to
ensure that the concept of a common civil code is not forgotten, so all is not
lost.
A
few recent decisions from high courts and the Supreme Court are listed below
that emphasise the importance of adopting a UCC.
The
Bombay High Court stated in “Narasu Appa Mali v. State of Bombay”[15] that: “Art. 44 of the Constitution is very
important. This art. states that the State shall strive to establish for the
citizens a consistent civil code throughout the territory of India. In other
terms, this art. implicitly recognises the existence of several personal law
codes that apply to Hindus and Muslims and authorises their continued
application until the State is able to secure an unitary civil code for all of
its citizens.”
The
current personal rules in this nation have their roots in biblical writings. It
is difficult to develop a uniform civil code that is relevant to the various
populations in this country since in many ways, their rules are entwined with
and based on religious and cultural considerations. The Constitution's creators
deliberated not to intrude with the protections given to the personal laws
at about this moment because they were fully aware of these difficulties.
Instead, they founded a core principle that an effort should be made in
the long term to secure a uniform codified enactments across India.
The
Supreme Court ruled in “Mohd. Ahmad Khan v. Shah Bano Begum”
that:
Regrettably,
Art. 44 of our Constitution has remained a mere piece of paper. There is no
proof that any official work has been done to create a common civil code for
the nation. It is the State's responsibility to ensure that the nation's
citizens have access to a uniform civil code, and it is without a doubt within
its legislative purview to do so. By removing varying allegiances to
legislation with opposing ideas, an unified civil code will aid in national
cohesion. Making unnecessary concessions on this matter won't likely alarm any
community. However, if the Constitution is to have any significance, a start
must be made. It is beyond the capacity of sensitive minds to permit injustice
to be experienced when it is so evident, thus the courts must inevitably take
on the role of the reformer. However, courts' haphazard attempts to reconcile
disparate personal laws cannot replace a single Civil Code. Justice for
everyone is a much more satisfying form of justice than justice in each
individual situation.
“Union
of India v. Sarla Mudgal”, President, Kalyani, the
Supreme Court noted that: Up until this point, no significant progress has been
made toward "unified personal law for all Indians" by the various
governments that have come and gone. It would be unnecessary to list the
causes. “The Hindu Marriage Act of 1955”, “The Hindu Succession Act of 1956”,
“The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act of 1956”, and “The Hindu Adoptions and
Maintenance Act of 1956”, It transformed the old Hindu law into a single,
unified code based on different school systems of thought and biblical rules,
represent the pinnacle of what has been accomplished. There is no longer any
excuse to put off the establishment of a "uniform civil code" for all
residents on Indian territory as larger chunk of the Indian population is
already covered under the codified laws. The obligation of carrying out the
constitutional mandate under Art. 44 of the Indian Constitution has been entirely
neglected by the Successive Governments up to this point. Therefore, we ask the
Indian government to reconsider Art. 44 of the constitution and "endeavour
to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of
India" through the prime minister of the nation.[16]
In “John
Vallatammom v. State of Kerala” and “Shabnam Hashmi v. Union of
India”, However,
one unsettling aspect of the judiciary's approach to religious matters so far
is that it has remained unwavering in its belief that preserving personal laws
outside the purview of art. 13 is the best course of action.[17] “These personal laws
continue to violate fundamental rights with impunity frequently because of the
parochial approach that has effectively shielded them from constitutional review.”
It is past time for the judiciary to abandon its cautious approach to personal
laws in order to avoid public backlash. The judiciary defends constitutional
morality, not popular morality and religion; hence it must immediately
invalidate everything that is unconstitutional.
CONCLUSION
India is a land of diversity where
several personal laws govern the people. Also, following the traditional
pattern of patriarchy, discrimination against women is often observed in
different spheres of society; property rights are one such area. Though there
has been a great development in property rights given to women, equality is
still a far fetched idea. Judicial development in this area is commendable; the
Judiciary has at times given landmark decisions that worked towards providing
equal rights to a woman.
The author has worked on this thesis
to answer four research questions, and in the above chapters, the author has
tried to answer each question to the best of their knowledge through doctrinal
research.
The first research question that the
author analysed in the chapter is what are the various provisions relating to
personal laws in the constitution. In the above chapters the author concluded
that Personal laws in India are unique creations of a multi-cultural system
that has developed over many generations.
Despite the fact that there is little
connection between personal law and religion, some orthodox groups in society
actively or covertly oppose efforts to achieve social justice in this area due
to their sentimental regard for the "living law" of tradition. The
majority of people have, nevertheless, reacted favourably to the adoption of
social changes in their own laws. However, the lawmaker's experience indicates
that it is exceedingly challenging to implement reforms, especially those that
are small-scale.
The Indian Constitution's Part III,
or Fundamental Rights, is regarded as being necessary to safeguard the
liberties and rights of the people from the abuse of the authority that they
have granted to their government. Part III of the Constitution, according to
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, is the s. that most directly affects ordinary people. It
includes all of the civil and political rights listed in the “Universal
Declaration of Human Rights” as well as the fundamental principles upheld by
the nation's citizens. Thus, in order for a person to reach his or her full
intellectual, moral, and spiritual potential, fundamental rights are necessary.
“Art. 25 of the Constitution” gives everyone the right to "freely profess,
practise, and propagate religion," but in reality, these rights are
frequently divided based on gender, and surprisingly, most women do not object
to this practise because they have been led to believe that such behaviour is
for their protection and for the best. The foundation of our secular nation is
the ability to practise, profess, and propagate one's religion freely, subject
to constitutionally permitted limitations.
It's interesting to note that our
Constitution emphasises both gender equality and the need for a more inclusive
society. Even the drafters of the Constitution could not have anticipated a
time when the right to pray and practise one's religion would be contested and
discussed in a court of law. Going with the flow and promoting the current,
courts have upheld women's rights to equality and freedom of religion,
attempting to put an end to the long-standing practise and overturn the
restrictions put in place.
Also there is a problem with
non-enforceability that prevents the DPSP from becoming a potent social
engineering tool. In recent years, there has been some effect on the legal
system. The judiciary has proven in numerous cases that the effective method
for internalising the values purposes of Part IV is to read DPSP and FR
together. The relationship between personal law and religion is remote, and
neither the judiciary nor the legislature encounter any obstacles on that
basis, thus there is no need to change any Part III provision dealing with
religious freedom to safeguard reforms in personal laws. Additionally, Art.
25(2) (b) is fairly flexible.
Despite the Muslim members' best
efforts, it is clear from the talks so far that the majority of the Constituent
Assembly members did not want to provide the "personal laws of diverse
communities for all time to come" a constitutional guarantee. “Art. 44”,
which calls for a "Universal civil code," was instead included. In
terms of personal laws' compliance with part III of the Constitution, the
judicial perspective demonstrates that this s. does not apply to personal laws.
The courts have construed the constitutionally protected right to freedom of
religion in such a way that it offers minimal protection for personal laws.
However, the Constitution does address personal laws under Entry 5, List III of
the Seventh Schedule together with art. 372 when it comes to the issue of their
recognition. Art. 44's requirement for uniformity itself acknowledges the
existing diversity of personal laws Thus, through this chapter the author tried
to understand the personal laws in the religion.
Now, the author tried to answer the
second research question to understand the recent trends of the personal laws
in the religion. Through this chapter, the author researched on the various
current issues that the religious institutions are facing currently in India.
In this chapter the author analysed the Entry of worship, the hijab
controversy, property issues, triple talaq and the azzan issues. The author did
an in-depth research on each individual issue to determine the rationale behind
these issues. In the Right of property issues, the author was able to determine
that there is a lacuna in the law since it does not recognize a notion of
marital property in India. Barring the limited case of the Civil Code of Goa,
the personal laws in India have yet to acknowledge this gap. S. 27 of the Hindu
Marriage Act 1955 does not suffice, as Sivaramayya himself convincingly argued.
Given the limited rights to inherit property that women have in many religious
personal laws and their lower levels of participation in the labour force, it
comes as no surprise that women's property ownership is limited. There can be
no debate that ownership of assets is invaluable in the empowerment of women.
Whereas, for the remaining issues,
the author understood that a judicial analysis is required to determine what
can be an essential religious practice and secular practice in India and to
determine that the author answered the third research question pertaining to do
judicial analysis of all the recent trends and events that have happened in the
recent times. The author has come to the conclusion that the court has yet to
determine a precedent that will set the definition of essential religious
practices of India and what should be secular practices.. Through various cases
such as Sabarimala Judgement, Santhara Incident, the court was able to
determine what are the essential religious practices in India. But with
incidents such as Azan Loudspeaker, the court is yet unable to differentiate
between what should be an essential religious practice and secular practice in
India. Thus, that is why the author recommended and suggested the
implementation of UCC in India and through that the religious practices and secular
practices in India.
SUGGESTIONS
In this paper, the researcher had
shed light on the recent trends in the religious based practices and their
correlation to their rights in personal
law. I have placed various examples from the past where the essential religious
practices have come to contention in the judiciary.
While still, there are concerns that
need to be put forward for better efficiency of the existing laws and protect
women from all communities.
Firstly, equal inheritance rights
should be availed by women in the Parsi Community. Parsi law is purely
patriarchal, and women are often discriminated against in socio-economic-legal
issues. The Parsi Law needs to be addressed before the Parliament to make it
more gender-equal and confer the inheritance rights on Parsi women. In the case
of marrying outside the Parsi Community, they are considered Parsi.[18]
Further, as per the recent trends are
concerned, the author believes that the judiciary through their judgement have
taken positive steps towards ensuring the equality of women. Through the
Sabarimala judgement, more and more awareness should be shed on the
menstruation of women, and rather it being a taboo in the society. The
government needs to create advertising campaigns highlighting the struggle and
issues that women face during menstruation to create a more sympathised society
for the women.
Lastly, in today's world, the
judiciary should take even a step to ensure that they work towards creating a
concrete definition of the essential religious practices that can be followed
through and set a precedent. As currently the Azzan issues have made the court
analysed what should be the secular essential practices so that the freedom of
religions is upheld.
I point out these main reforms and
suggestions from the above chapters require urgent attention by the
legislature. I would also like to suggest that there is ample legislation for
securing women’s interest in society and the judiciary needs to set a precedent
that will define the Essential Religious practices of India.. The
implementation part of these laws is the real problem that needs to be assessed
by law enforcement agencies. In India, a time will come for adopting the
Uniform Civil Code, which is not currently approved by the law panel.
[1]“Ministry of Home
Affairs, ‘LIBERHAN AYODHYA COMMISSION | Ministry of Home Affairs | GoI’ (www.mha.gov.in)
<https://www.mha.gov.in/about-us/commissions-committees/liberhan-ayodhya-commission> accessed 25 July
2022.”
[2]“Rajeev Bhargava,
Amiya Kumar Bagchi and R Sudarshan, Multiculturalism, Liberalism and Democracy
(Oxford University Press 2007) <https://global.oup.com/academic/product/multiculturalism-liberalism-and-democracy-9780195692983?lang=en&cc=au> accessed 25 July
2022.”
[3] “Constitution of
India, 1950, art. 25”
[5]“Niraja Gopal Jayal
and Pratap Bhanu Mehta, The Oxford Companion to Politics in India (Oxford
University Press 2011).”
[6]“Arthur Mayhew, Christianity
and the Government of India. (Faber 1929).”
[7]“S Narula, ‘Gary
Jeffrey Jacobsohn, the Wheel of Law: India’s Secularism in Comparative
Constitutional Context. Princeton University Press 2003. Pp. Xviii + 324.’
(2006) 4 International Journal of Constitutional Law 741.”
[8] “Constitution of
India, 1950, art.37”
[9]“Laura Dudley
Jenkins, ‘Five: Personal Law and Reservations ; Volition and Religion in
Contemporary India’ [2001] Religion and personal law in secular India 104 <https://ixtheo.de/Record/739843567> accessed 25 July
2022.”
[11]“Mohd. Ahmed Khan v.
Shah Bano Begum 1985 SCR (3) 844”
[12]Ibid.
[13]“Martha Nussbaum,
‘India: Implementing Sex Equality through Law’ (2001) 2 Chicago Journal of
International Law Chicago Journal of International Law <https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&art.=1118&context=cjil#:~:text=the%20laws.> accessed 25 July
2022.”
[17]“Narasu Appa Mali v.
State of Bombay, AIR 1952 Bom 84”
[18] Menski, Werner.
2003. Hindu Law. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Article Information
NEED OF UNIFORM CIVIL CODE AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION.BY - ABHISHEK BHAMU
Authors: ABHISHEK BHAMU
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2024/04/11
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.