Open Access Research Article
UNIFORM CIVIL CODE: A NUANCE
Published Paper
Article Details
UNIFORM CIVIL CODE: A NUANCE
AUTHORED BY - NIVEDITA SINGH 1 & ARYAN SINGH 2*
1.
University Institute Of Legal Studies
2.
Tata Institute of Social Studies*
ABSTRACT:
THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, in the
landmark judgment of Sarla Mudgal, has emphasised the importance of a
consistent civil code for all Indians in personal law disputes. The Supreme
Court has reminded the Government of India of its need to create a standard
civil code to protect the oppressed while also promoting national unity and
integration. The decision has caused consternation among power-hungry
politicians and religious extremists. Since the inception of the Constitution
in 1950, no central government has had the courage to impose a Uniform Civil
Code for all inhabitants of India in matters of marriage, succession,
inheritance, adoption, and so on. Article 44 of the Indian Constitution
attempts to establish a Uniform Civil Code. The state shall make every effort
to ensure that citizens have access to a Uniform Civil Code throughout India's
territory. This article is one of the state's policy directive principles. It
lays a positive obligation on the state to adopt a unified civil code for all
Indians across India's territory. Though not enforceable in a court of law, it
is critical to the country's governance. The authors of the Constitution set no
time restriction for implementing the directive principles of state policy.
This was made available because the members wanted the scars of partition to
heal and the country to be ready for a change in personal law. Because Article
44 is not a mandate to it, the Government of India has not committed its mind
to fulfilling this positive obligation imposed by the Indian Constitution. This
fact in and of itself is a barrier to its implementation. Another impediment is
the ability of the Parliament of India and state legislatures to legislate on
most of the themes that could be included in the uniform civil code. The
primary impediment is that different religious sects have extremely diverse
personal laws. They do not appreciate it when any outside agency interferes
with them. Nonetheless, the objectives outlined in Article 44 of the Indian
Constitution demand the state's undivided attention and a concerted effort to
implement them as quickly as possible. Making one major law on all domains of
marriage, divorce, succession, adoption, and so on with one stroke of the pen,
on the other hand, may bring enormous trouble in modifying age-old traditions
and practises.
Key Words: consistent civil code,
personal law disputes, national unity and integration, extremely diverse
personal laws,
Introduction:
Uniform Civil Code, Whether Feasible in Indian Demographic Situations
The recently elected Bharatiya Janata
Party (BJP) government in India has brought back to the forefront an issue that
has vexed Indian feminists for decades: the lack of a unified civil code (UCC),
for all Indian citizens. On the surface, implementing a standard norm in
marriage, property inheritance, and child guardianship appears to be completely
congruent with feminist aims. However, the way and context in which the UCC is
formulated in India indicates why Indian feminists are now opposed to the
policy. The Hindu right BJP actively strives to market itself as secular and
pro-women, while opponents of a UCC are seen as "pseudo-secular" and
anti-women. Both as an individual citizen and as a member of a group. Articles
14 to 24 of the constitution secure the individual's rights to equality and
freedom, while Articles 25 to 30 defend religious freedom as well as
minorities' educational and cultural rights. It is from the latter that
religious communities draw the right to be ruled by their own "personal laws."
Because these personal laws involve
marriage and property inheritance, The tension in Part III of the constitution
is a contradiction between the rights of women as individual citizens and those
of religious communities as collective entities of a democracy. Part IV of the
constitution, "Directive Principles of State Policy," which calls on
the state to bring about a UCC, reflects the view that establishing universal
laws for all citizens is the properly modern goal for a nation-state. Although the
majority of prevailing narratives, particularly those of the Hindu right, frame
the need for a UCC as a question of national integrity, a significant shift
during the 1990s is that the UCC has also come to be framed as a "women's
rights" issue.
Only minority women need to be saved,
according to the BJP's majoritarian Hindu interpretation of the UCC, because
"we" (Hindus) have already granted "our" women equal
rights. Self-styled leaders of minority religious communities, on the other
hand, criticise the UCC on the grounds that It would erode minority cultural
identities, the preservation of which is critical to democracy. However, both
of these viewpoints are extremely problematic for feminists. Over the decades,
the debate within the women's movement has evolved in complex and numerous
directions, which this essay will quickly summarise.
Because of its implied homogenising
thrust, the argument that portrays national integrity as the justification for
a UCC, together with its combination with "women's rights," is objectionable.
To begin with, it is incorrect to believe that while Hindus have freely
accepted reform, "other" communities continue to adhere to various
and retrogressive anti-women policies, endangering the nation-state's
integrity. The argument that Hindu Personal Law was modified is deceptive: it
was only codified. Laws designed to
reform marriage and inheritance were withheld from discussion in parliament on
the eve of the first general election, conducted in 1951, in response to
pressure from conservatives in the Congress party.
In protest, B.R. Ambedkar, the
original drafter of the Hindu code bill, resigned as law minister. Prime
Minister Nehru eventually succeeded in passing four pieces of legislation in
1955-1956: the Hindu Marriage Act, the Hindu Succession Act, the Hindu Minority
and Guardianship Act, and the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. These laws
codified the wide and diversified practises of all communities that were
neither Muslim, Parsi, nor Christian, bringing them into accordance with what
were considered to be "Hindu" principles, but were, in fact, North
Indian, upper-caste practises. Other practises that did not conform to these
ideals were expressly condemned during parliament debates as
"un-Indian."
These legislation enacted in the
mid-1950s were far from unqualified advances for women's rights. On the
contrary, codification eliminated the multiplicity of Hindu laws practised in
different locations, erasing existing and frequently more liberal customary
norms in the process.
In contrast, there are aspects of
Muslim Personal Law that are more beneficial to women than Hindu Personal Law:
In circumstances of divorce, the Muslim marriage-as-contract protects women
better than the Hindu marriage-as-sacrament; the Muslim law of inheritance
protects women's rights better than Hindu law; and the mehr (bride-price) is
the sole property of the wife. Furthermore, Muslim males who marry more than
once are legally obligated to fulfil commitments to all of their wives, whereas
Hindu men who get into polygamous partnerships (illegal since 1998) are not.
In their second or third weddings,
they are exempt from this responsibility under the 1955 Hindu Marriage Act. In
practise, the BJP's claim that a UCC will take into account "positive
features" of all personal laws is unworkable. Mehr, for example, cannot be
brought into Hindu marriages, nor can the Hindu marriage rite be transformed
into a contract, despite the fact that both are favourable characteristics of
Muslim law in comparison to Hindu law.
Another flaw in the national
integrity argument is that it is built on the marginalisation and exclusion of
a wide range of other interests and identities, and thus it is not a value that
feminists can support. Simultaneously, feminists cannot accept the unconditional
claims of minority religious communities to unreformed personal laws in the
name of cultural identity. For one reason, the cultural identity included
inside personal laws, which is presently regarded as "natural" and
prior to all other identities, is no more primal than the nation. It is vital
to remember where personal laws came from: the British colonial authority, in
consultation with self-styled community leaders, simplified extremely diverse
family and property structures under the reach of the law. Hindu, Muslim,
Christian, and Parsi religions are all represented. Thus, the resulting
personal rules of each of these religions, which are upheld today in the guise
of tradition and religious freedom, are colonial products of the past.
Discussion:
The women's movement's reaction to a
UCC has taken many different forms. The All India Women's Conference expressed
the need for a unified civil code for all religious communities for the first
time in 1937.
Until the late 1980s, greater
segments of the women's movement amplified this demand. However, there was
significant reassessment in the early 1990s. By 1995, a wide range of
viewpoints had evolved, ranging from continuous support for a UCC to explicit
rejection of such a step and, instead, a call for revisions within each
religion's personal rules. By the end of the 1990s, the women's movement had
reached a general understanding that the campaign for gender-just laws should
be done on three levels:
1. support for efforts to reform
personal laws;
2. a push for legislation in areas
not covered by either secular or personal laws (for example, domestic violence
and the right to matrimonial home), thereby avoiding direct confrontation with
communities and communal politics; and
3. the establishment of a
longer-term, comprehensive, gender-just framework of rights covering not only
areas covered by personal laws, but also the public domain of work (laws
encompassing day and night shifts).
There have been notable
accomplishments in the first two areas mentioned above. Through ongoing
interactions within the community, feminists made divorce law more just for
Indian Christians, resulting in the passage of the Indian Divorce (Amendment)
Act of 2001. Muslim reform groups have also created various types of model
marriage contracts (nikahnamas) that protect women's rights, albeit they have
yet to be recognised by Muslim community leaders. The Domestic Violence Act is
the consequence of the strategy of focusing on issues not covered by personal
laws. which provides women with
protection from domestic violence as well as rights to the matrimonial home,
and in modifications to the Juvenile Justice Act (2006), which allow people
from different cultures to lawfully adopt children.
It is important that the phrase
"uniform" has been withdrawn entirely as a positive value from the
arguments within the women's movement, even in stances that reaffirm the need
for state law. Thus, in the proposals for a mandatory code presented by
advocacy groups like Saheli and
The terms "common,"
"gender-just," and "egalitarian" are used to describe codes
by the Delhi-based People's Union for Democratic Rights, or an optional code by
the Bombay-based Forum Against Oppression of Women, or a negotiable common code
by the Delhi-based Working Group on Women's Rights, not "uniform."
This broad rejection of uniformity by the 1990s is noteworthy because it
represents the women's movement's recognition of the necessity to reconsider
both the nation as a homogeneous entity.
Uniformity as a value is, strangely,
consistent with both secularism and marginalising other cultures. As we can see
in France, where the Muslim veil might become a problematic declaration of
religious difference, the norm remains invisibly imprinted with the veil.
Uniformity as a value of the
dominating community. The BJP may present itself as a Hindu nationalist party
while also preaching the language of abstract citizenship. As a result, it is
easy to use the epithet "pseudo-secularist" to designate individuals
who accept the necessity for minority protection, or the claim that provisions
such as distinct personal laws, special status for Kashmir, and minority status
for educational institutions are "anti-secular."
In other words, within an abstract
citizenship framework, it is feasible to declare that it is
"communal" to raise the problem of (minority) religious
identification and "casteist" to proclaim (lower) caste identity at
the same time that the dominant community and caste are considered to be the
norm.
The Indian women's movement rejects
the imposition of majoritarian uniformity while also supporting reform
movements within religious organisations. Heterogeneous practises do not have
to be fundamentally inequitable, and uniform law does not have to imply the
reverse. The women's movement works to guarantee that the rights of women are
respected.
Women's rights do not suffer as a
result of minority communities' worry that altering their personal laws will
erode their identity.
When a minority community faces
extermination, the natural reaction is to band together. When a community is
confident, it can afford to be critical of itself.
The stronger investigation of the
supposed heteronormative family at the heart of personal laws is a second significant
change since the 1990s. Even in the 1990s, the Forum Against Domestic Violence
expanded the term of "family" in its optional code to include
homosexual relationships and heterosexual couples living together outside of
marriage. In the uncertain aftermath of the Indian Supreme Court judgement in
2013 that effectively recriminalized adult, consensual, same-sex relationships,
the subject of non-heteronormative partnerships is even more central today, in
2014. Equally crucial is the need to rethink all personal relationships in
contractual terms that safeguard all of the women involved, so that men in
bigamous and polygamous partnerships that are not official marriages are
required to accept responsibility for all the women concerned.
Individual property rights, on the
other hand, undermine the objective of regulating name, lineage, and handing on
of property. In light of this tension, we must regard the state's gradual
granting of property rights to women under Hindu law—the most recent change in
2005 allowing women access to ancestral property—as more than a symbolic
gesture.
A straightforward triumph of feminist
demands. It also reflects, at least in theory, the formation of a bourgeois
property rule for the Hindu society, which makes land entirely alienable by
each independent individual owner. In the current atmosphere of widespread
opposition to state land acquisition, this is a significant victory for the
state, as it is always simpler to compel or tempt individual owners to surrender
land than communities. Should the greater issue of land rights and state land
acquisition be set aside while considering individual women's property rights?
Clearly, the feminist argument over the UCC has reached a new level of
complication, and new debates have begun.
The necessity for a Uniform Civil
Code was felt as soon as the constitution went into effect. Even after 54
years, this directive could not be implemented for reasons known to all those
involved with this directive. The UCC also attempts to overcome the
particularistic and frequently reactionary characteristics of many religious
communities' personal rules. Thus, the goal is to bring about societal
improvement while also elevating women's position.
The absence of UCC results in sharp,
unnecessary, and unpleasant situations. Marriage, in the opinion of the court,
is "the very foundation of civilised society." Once a relationship is
formed, the law comes into play and binds the parties to different obligations
and liabilities. Marriage is not an institution in which the general people is
particularly invested. It is the foundation of the family and, by extension,
society, and without it, no civilization can exist. Until we create a
government-wide standard civil code for all citizens, we cannot enter into
second marriages while the previous marriage is still active in order to become
Muslims. Since Hindu law requires monogamy and Muslim law allows for up to four
wives in India. "A Hindu husband converts to Islam in order to avoid the provisions
of Hindu law and avoid punishment."
The Indian Constitution went into
effect in 1950. Since then, Article 44 has gathered dust, with no central
administration ever having the guts and foresight to touch it. This awful
circumstance unquestionably burys the spirit of the constitution a thousand
fathoms below the surface.Of course, there was outcry and opposition in the
constituent assembly to the creation of UCC for the entire nation when article
44 was drafted.4 First, it would violate the fundamental right to religious
freedom guaranteed in article 25, and second, it would be severely detrimental
to the interests of minorities. It is argued that the first issue is greatly
misconceived, because the goal outlined in article 44 does not in any way
violate religious freedom or the promise outlined in article 42. Clause (2), subclause (b), offers an
exception to the effect that any existing or future laws providing for social
welfare and reform are unaffected.
In response to the second objection,
that the enactment would be tyrannical to minorities, Shri K.M. Munshi, a
member of the constituent assembly's drafting committee, stated that nowhere in
the advised Muslim countries has the personal law of each minority been
recognised as so sacred as to preclude the enactment of a civil code. While
justifying the introduction of the Hindu Code Bill instead of a UCC in
parliament in 1954, Pundit Jawaharlal Nehru stated, "I don't think that
time is ripe in India for me to try to push it through." Even after 51
years, it appears that the ruling class is unwilling to recover Article 44 from
the cold storage where it has been since 1949. Governments that have come and
gone have made no efforts to create a unified personal law for all of India.
The Supreme Court confirmed this in
the well-known Sarla Mudgal Case6 of 1995. Following this, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court advised on July 23, 2003, that parliament design a uniform civil code for
the country in order to aid the cause of national integration. This suggestion
was made by a three-judge bench consisting of Chief Justice V.N. Khare, Justice
S.B. Sinha, and Justice A.R. Lakshmanan while declaring unconstitutional
Section 1 18 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (ISA) on the grounds that it
was arbitrary, irrational, and violated Article 14 of the constitution, which
states that the state shall not deny to any person equality before the law or
equal protection of the laws.
According to Section 118 of the ISA,
"No man having a nephew or niece or any nearer relative shall have power
to bequeath any property to religious or charitable uses, except by a will
executed not less than 12 months before his death and deposited within six
months from its execution in some place provided by law for safe custody of the
wills of living persons."The bench was hearing a writ petition from a
Christian priest, John Vallamatton, who was contesting the provision on the
grounds that it discriminated against Christians who left property to
charitable and religious causes. "It is a matter of regret that article 44
of the constitution has not been given effect," wrote the Chief Justice in
the main judgement.
However, the reactions have been mixed.
According to Section 118 of the
ISA, "No man having a nephew or niece or any nearer relative shall have power
to bequeath any property to religious or charitable uses, except by a will
executed not less than 12 months before his death and deposited within six
months from its execution in some place provided by law for safe custody of the
wills of living persons."The bench was hearing a writ petition from a
Christian priest, John Vallamatton, who was contesting the provision on the
grounds that it discriminated against Christians who left property to
charitable and religious causes. "It is a matter of regret that article 44
of the constitution has not been given effect," wrote the Chief Justice in
the main judgement.
Arguments:
Arguments for UCC:
1.
Women
and children are subject to unjust laws in all personal civil codes. These must
be changed, not on the basis of conformity, but on the basis of equity and
justice for the marginalised and oppressed. Uniformity will surely result if
all communities work together to correct the inequalities in their personal
laws.
2.
After
a careful examination of the Supreme Court's observations, it is clear that no
matter how well-intentioned the judges are, such difficulties will only
generate problems. Women do not receive justice under Muslim personal law. Any
such reform, however, must originate from inside the Muslim women themselves.
The solution is not the rule of law. Muslims would not accept a consistent code
in such a hostile environment.
3.
Muslims are economically and educationally
behind. If the government is truly interested about equality, it should focus
on these areas rather than the emotionally charged topic of the Uniform Civil
Code.
4.
The
main argument of the AIMPLB is that Sharia (Islamic Law) is an inherent part of
Islam, and that implementing the Uniform Civil Code will deprive Muslims and
many communities of their particular laws and fundamental right to religion.
Sharia is a divinely ordained law. No human being succeeds.
5.
When
select people are given special status, it creates an unpleasant religious
separation. When even the law of the land is not the same for all people in
India, it becomes increasingly difficult to teach equality among residents.
6.
In
this country, all laws, including penal laws, apply to all citizens without
regard to religion, race, caste, creed, or gender. The peculiarity is that it
is not applicable to Muslim personal law. Muslim personal law controls
marriage, inheritance, divorce, and other aspects in the Muslim religion. There
is an urgent need to correct this uneven and haphazard state in order to bring
light into the lives of Muslim womenfolk in India. One country and one
7.
In
Islam, there is a lot of misinformation about bigamy. Ironically, Islamic
countries such as Syria, Tunisia, Morocco, Pakistan, and Iran have codified
personal law in which polygamy is either completely forbidden or severely
restricted in order to prevent the misuse and abuse of this toxic practise.
Arguments Against UCC:
1.
All
personal civil codes have unjust laws dealing to women and children. These must
be changed, not on the basis of conformity, but on the basis of equity and
justice for the oppressed and marginalised. Uniformity will inevitably result
if all communities work together to eliminate inequities in their personal
laws.
2.
All
personal civil codes have unjust laws dealing to women and children. These must
be changed, not on the basis of conformity, but on the basis of equity and
justice for the oppressed and marginalised. Uniformity will inevitably result
if all communities work together to eliminate inequities in their personal
laws.
3.
Muslims
are economically and educationally backward. If the government is truly
interested about equality, it should focus on these areas rather than the
emotionally charged topic of the Uniform Civil Code, and it also depends on the
government's desire to implement it.
4.
The
main argument of AIMPLB is that Sharia (Islamic Law) is an inherent part of
Islam, and that implementing the Uniform Civil Code will deprive Muslims and
many communities of their particular laws and fundamental right to religion.
Sharia is a divinely inspired law. Any human being does not succeed. As a
result, no one has the authority to intervene.
5.
The
goal of secularism cannot be realised unless the right to religion and some
religious customs give priority and permanence to the mandate provided in
article 44 of the constitution. As a result, it is one of the most pressing
needs of our day to attain consistency in social connections, which will serve
as the foundation for constructing the world's most cohesive, integrated, and
powerful democracy. Then comes the magnificent idea of the Supreme Court to
create a unified civil code in order to strengthen the sense of oneness among
all religious sects in order to protect religious freedom.
6.
Uniform
personal law is essentially political, a sectarian weapon used to penalise
Muslims by falsely claiming that Hindus have a code and forcing Muslims to
provide one. Hindus did not codify joint family property law, which granted men
authority and money. That, however, is beside the issue. Do we desire a Uniform
Civil Code (actually uniform personal laws) for the sake of giving the B JP and
others political clout?
7.
The
goal of secularism cannot be realised unless the right to religion and some
religious customs give priority and permanence to the mandate provided in
article 44 of the constitution. As a result, it is one of the most pressing
needs of our day to attain consistency in social connections, which will serve
as the foundation for constructing the world's most cohesive, integrated, and
powerful democracy. Then comes the magnificent idea of the Supreme Court to
create a unified civil code in order to strengthen the sense of oneness among
all religious sects in order to protect religious freedom.
Conclusion:
The Indian constitution envisions a
secular state by ensuring religious freedom to all citizens within the
framework of a religion-free state. An analysis of articles 25 through 30
reveals this. However, religious freedom is subject to some constraints.
Similarly, while the state is prohibited from preaching or promoting any
religion, it can create a general fund through taxation to promote and maintain
all religions, as well as to provide aid in appropriate instances, without
prejudice.
These clauses clearly demonstrate the
significant significance that religion plays in some elements of our lives. It
is true that establishing a standard code for all religions is a difficult
assignment for legislators. As a result, Indian secularism must establish a
philosophy of coexistence. "The traditional Hindu law governing
inheritance, succession, and marriage was codified in 1955-56." There is
no need to postpone the implementation of uniform personal law in the country
forever. The learned judge went on to say that those who wanted to stay in
India after partition were aware that Indian leaders did not believe in the two
or three nation theories, and that in an Indian republic, there would be only
one nation - Indian nation, and no community could claim to be a separate
entity on the basis of religion. Not just a lawyer, but even a layperson, may
appreciate the verdict.
Everything, however, is dependent on
the government's willingness to implement it. Will the government require Sikhs
to remove their turbans if everyone is required to wear a helmet while driving?
Will Christians tolerate it if the government legalises abortion to regulate
population growth? Or, if the government makes cow slaughter legal, will it not
harm Hindus? As a result, it must be handled carefully. In India, religion is a
sentimental and spiritual matter. Before doing anything, the government should
consult with everyone. It is past time for the government to take serious steps
towards implementing the Uniform Civil Code, rather than avoiding the topic for
the sake of short-term political advantage.
A calm, steady, and compelling
approach is required because justice delayed is justice denied, while justice
hastened is justice buried. The legislature should leave no stone unturned in
realising this fundamental aim, no matter how difficult or long the process.
However, enacting consistent legislation should not jeopardise the intended
balance of legislative authorities.
It is at this point that one recalls
the words of Congressman Acharya Kripalani, who said when the Hindu personal
laws were significantly modified in 1955-56, despite the vehement resistance of
an orthodox president and Hindu religious leaders. He stated, "We call our
state a secular state because it is not bound by scripture or custom." It
must function on both sociological and political levels. If we are a democratic
state, I believe we must develop rules that apply to all communities, not just
one. Today, the Hindu community is less prepared for divorce than the Muslim
community is for monogamy.... Will our government draught legislation to
legalise monogamy among Muslims? Will my beloved law minister apply the
monogamy section to every community in India? The government remained mute and
proceeded as planned. Fifty years later, the government remains silent. A bold
government could have enforced equality and justice for all Indian women at the
time. A progressive administration should act now to promote equality and
justice for all Indian women by enacting a standard civil code.
Discrimination against women is
codified in Indian Muslim personal law. Worse, attempts by the courts to
improve their standing have enraged elements of the population. The Supreme
Court granted support to an impoverished divorced lady denied by her ex-husband
in the Shah Bano case on grounds other than Muslim personal law. The resulting
controversy drove the pusillanimous, vote-seeking administration of the day to
hurry a law through Parliament, the obliquely worded Muslim Women (Protection
of Rights on Divorce) Act, in order to annul the ruling and deny Muslim women
this protection.
REFERENCES:
1. AIR 1981 SC 298
2. AIR 1982 SC 232
3. (1991) 1 SCC 611
4. C.A.D. (Constituent Assembly
Debates) Vol II pp.546-548
5. 1985 2 SCC 556
6. 1995 3 SCC 635
7. Supra note. 5
ARTICLES
1) B .G. Verghese, Who is afraid of a
Uniform Civil Code? The Hindu ( 13/8/2003)
2) Personal Laws and Common Sense,
The Hindu (28/7/2003)
3) Supreme court suggest framing of a
common civil code, The Hindu (23/7/2003)
4) Vir Sanghvi, Towards a Uniform
Civil Code, Sunday Hindustan Times (10/8/2003)
5) Do we need a uniform civil code?
Hindustan Times (30/72003)
6) A.G. Noorani, UCC: Keep the faith,
Hindustan Times (28/7/2003)
7) Babir K. Punj, Common chord - A Uniform
approach to the Law, Times of India ( 1 5/8/2003)
8) B JP welcomes court suggestion on common
civil code, The Hindu (24/7/2003)
9) Who is for a Common Civil Code? Hindustan
Times, (22/1/2004)
10) Religious groups unhappy with SC s remarks
on UCC, Hindustan Times, (23/7/2003)
11) J. Venkatesan, SC suggests framing of a
Common Civil Code, The Hindu, (24/7/2003)
12) Chandan Mitra, What if we had a Uniform
Civil Code, The pioneer (August, 2003)
13) Rakesh Bhatnagar, The long wait
for Uniform Civil Code, Times of India, (March 4, 1 997)
14) Christopher Jaffrelot, Ambedkar and the
Uniform Civil Code, Ambedkar and untouchability- analyzing and fighting Castes,
Permanent Blach Publications 2004
15) Ms. Ritu Raj, Uniform Civil Code
and National Integration, Competition Success Review, November 2003
16) V.R. Krishna Iyer, Unifying Persona Laws,
The Hindu (8-7-2003)
17) Rajeev Dhawan, Codifying Personal
Laws, The Hindu ( 1 -8-2003) JOURNALS 1) Too personal to be Uniform? Lawyer's
Collective, July 2003.
Article Information
UNIFORM CIVIL CODE: A NUANCE
Authors: NIVEDITA SINGH, ARYAN SINGH
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2023/07/14
- 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.