Content deleted Content added
m Reverted edit by 59.95.64.250 (talk) to last version by Criticize |
Rescuing 0 sources and tagging 1 as dead.) #IABot (v2.0.9.5 |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 7:
{{Family law|all}}
The '''Uniform Civil Code''' is a proposal in India to formulate and implement [[personal law]]s of citizens which apply equally to all citizens, regardless of their religion. Currently, personal laws of
Personal laws were first framed during the [[British Raj]], mainly for Hindu and Muslim subjects. The British feared opposition from community leaders and refrained from further interfering within this [[Separate spheres|domestic sphere]].{{Citation needed|date=July 2025}} The Indian state of [[Goa]] was separated from [[British Raj|British India]] during the colonial rule in the erstwhile [[Portuguese Goa and Damaon|Portuguese Goa and Daman]], retained a common family law known as the [[Goa civil code]] and thus was the only state in India with a uniform civil code prior to 2024. Following India's independence, [[Hindu code bills]] were introduced which largely codified and reformed personal laws in various sects among [[Indian religions]] like [[Buddhism|Buddhists]], [[Hindus]], [[Jains]] and [[Sikhs]] but they exempted [[Christians]], [[Jews]], [[Muslims]] and [[Parsis]].<ref name="Rina Wiiliams">{{Cite book|author=Rina Verma Williams|title=Postcolonial Politics and Personal Laws|pages=18, 28, 106, 107, 119|publisher=[[Oxford University Press]]|isbn=0-19-568014-6|date=2006}}</ref><ref name="The Wire UCC gender justice">{{cite news |last1=Dasgupta |first1=Sravasti |title=BJP Equates UCC With Gender Justice. But Can It End Discrimination In-Built in Personal Laws? |url=https://thewire.in/women/bjp-ucc-with-gender-justice-discrimination-personal-laws |access-date=6 July 2023 |work=[[The Wire (India)|The Wire]] |date=6 July 2023 |___location=New Delhi |language=en}}</ref>
UCC emerged as a crucial topic of interest in Indian politics following the [[Shah Bano case]] in 1985. The debate arose on the question of making certain laws applicable to all citizens without abridging the fundamental right to practice religious functions. The debate then focused on the [[Muslim personal law]], which is partially based on [[Sharia|Sharia law]], permitting [[Divorce in Islam|unilateral divorce]], [[polygamy]] and putting it among the [[Muslim personal law in India|legally applying the Sharia law]]. A UCC bill was proposed twice, in November 2019 and March 2020 but was withdrawn both the times without introduction in the parliament. The bill is reported to be under discussion between the [[BJP]] and the [[Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh]] (RSS).<ref name="Ramchandran"/> Many opposition parties and BJP's allies from the [[National Democratic Alliance]] (NDA) have opposed the Uniform Civil Code, especially from [[Northeast India]], claiming that it will go against the "idea of India" and will end special privileges of tribal communities after renewed calls by Prime Minister [[Narendra Modi]] in June 2023 about implementing a UCC.<ref name="scroll.in NDA partners oppose UCC">{{cite news |last1=Dasgupta |first1=Sravasti |title=NDA Partners from Northeast Oppose BJP's Push for Uniform Civil Code |url=https://thewire.in/politics/nda-partners-in-northeast-oppose-bjps-push-for-uniform-civil-code |access-date=6 July 2023 |work=[[The Wire (India)|The Wire]] |date=3 July 2023}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Staff |first1=The Wire |title=In Poll Bound Madhya Pradesh, PM Modi Rakes up Triple Talaq, UCC and 'Appeasement' |url=https://thewire.in/politics/in-poll-bound-madhya-pradesh-pm-modi-rakes-up-triple-talaq-ucc-and-appeasement |access-date=16 July 2023 |work=[[The Wire (India)|The Wire]] |date=27 June 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230715222251/https://thewire.in/politics/in-poll-bound-madhya-pradesh-pm-modi-rakes-up-triple-talaq-ucc-and-appeasement |archive-date=15 July 2023 |___location=New Delhi |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Staff |first1=The Wire |title=In Poll Bound Madhya Pradesh, PM Modi Rakes up Triple Talaq, UCC and 'Appeasement' |url=https://thewire.in/politics/in-poll-bound-madhya-pradesh-pm-modi-rakes-up-triple-talaq-ucc-and-appeasement |access-date=16 July 2023 |work=[[The Wire (India)|The Wire]] |date=27 June 2023}}</ref>
Line 23:
==== Legislative reforms ====
Certain Hindu customs prevalent at the time discriminated against women by depriving them of inheritance, remarriage and divorce. Their condition, especially that of [[Widow remarriage|Hindu widows]] and daughters, was poor due to this and other prevalent customs.{{sfn|Chavan|Kidwai|2006|p=87–88}}{{sfn|Chavan|Kidwai|2006|p=94–100}} The British and social reformers like [[Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar]] were instrumental in outlawing such customs by getting reforms passed through [[legislature|legislative processes]].{{sfn|Chavan|Kidwai|2006|p=83–86}}
There were law reforms passed which were beneficial to women like the [[Hindu Widows' Remarriage Act, 1856|Hindu Widow Remarriage Act of 1856]], Married Women's Property Act of 1923 and the [[The Hindu Inheritance (Removal of Disabilities) Act, 1928|Hindu Inheritance (Removal of Disabilities) Act, 1928]], which in a significant move, permitted a Hindu woman's right to property.{{sfn|Chavan|Kidwai|2006|p=87–88}}
Line 36:
=== Hindu Code Bill and addition to the Directive Principles ===
{{further|Hindu code bills}}
[[File:Jawaharlal Nehru, circa 1925.jpg|thumb|upright=0.9|[[Jawaharlal Nehru]] supported a uniform civil code but he had to face opposition from other leaders]]
The Indian Parliament discussed the report of the Hindu law committee during the 1948–1951 and 1951–1954 sessions. The first Prime Minister of the [[Indian republic]], [[Jawaharlal Nehru]], his supporters and women members wanted a uniform civil code to be implemented.{{sfn|Chavan|Kidwai|2006|p=90, 94–100}} As [[Law minister of India|Law Minister]], [[B. R. Ambedkar]] was in charge of presenting the details of this bill. It was found that the orthodox Hindu laws were pertaining only to a specific school and tradition because monogamy, divorce and the widow's right to inherit property were present in the ''[[Shashtra]]s''.{{sfn|Chavan|Kidwai|2006|p=90, 94–100}} A Civil Code of western inspiration was recommended by Ambedkar.<ref>{{cite web|last=Jaffrelot|first=Christophe|author-link=Christophe Jaffrelot|date=14 August 2003|title=Ambedkar And The Uniform Civil Code|url=http://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/ambedkar-and-the-uniform-civil-code/221068|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160414123716/http://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/ambedkar-and-the-uniform-civil-code/221068|archive-date=14 April 2016|access-date=29 March 2016|website=Outlook India}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Pathak|first=Vikas|date=1 December 2015|title=Ambedkar favoured common civil code|url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ambedkar-favoured-common-civil-code/article7934565.ece|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161128184514/http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ambedkar-favoured-common-civil-code/article7934565.ece|archive-date=28 November 2016|access-date=29 March 2016|website=The Hindu}}</ref> Ambedkar's frequent attack on the Hindu laws and dislike for the upper castes made him unpopular in the parliament. He had done research on the religious texts and considered the Hindu society structure flawed. According to him, only law reforms could save it and the Code bill was this opportunity.{{sfn|Sarkar|Sarkar|2008|p=480–491}} He thus faced severe criticism from the opposition. Nehru later supported Ambedkar's reforms but did not share his negative view on Hindu society.{{sfn|Sarkar|Sarkar|2008|p=480–491}}
Line 51:
{{main|Shah Bano case}}
After the passing of the Hindu Code bill, the personal laws in India had two major areas of application: the common Indian citizens and the [[Muslims in India|Muslim community]], whose laws were kept away from any reforms.{{sfn|Lawrence|Karim|2007|p=265–267}} The frequent conflict between secular and religious authorities over the issue of uniform civil code eventually decreased, until the 1985 Shah Bano case. Bano was a 73-year-old woman who sought maintenance from her husband, Muhammad Ahmad Khan. He had divorced her after 40 years of marriage by triple ''[[Divorce in Islam|Talaaq]]'' (saying "I divorce thee" three times) and denied her regular maintenance; this sort of unilateral divorce was permitted under the Muslim Personal Law. She was initially granted maintenance by the verdict of a local court in 1980. Khan, a lawyer himself, challenged this decision, taking it to the [[Supreme court of India|Supreme Court]], saying that he had fulfilled all his obligations under Islamic law. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Shah Bano in 1985 under the "maintenance of wives, children and parents" provision (Section 125) of the [[Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973|All India Criminal Code]], which applied to all citizens irrespective of religion. It further recommended that a uniform civil code be set up, stating that a uniform civil code would promote national integration by eliminating conflicting loyalties to laws with divergent ideologies.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/law-commission-seeks-public-religious-bodies-views-on-uniform-civil-code-101686769326963.html | title=Law Commission seeks public, religious bodies' views on Uniform Civil Code | date=15 June 2023 }}</ref> Besides her case, two other Muslim women had previously received maintenance under the [[Code of Criminal Procedure (India)|Criminal Code]] in 1979 and 1980.{{sfn|Lawrence|Karim|2007|p=262–264}}
[[File:Rajiv Gandhi at 7 Race course road 1988 (cropped).jpg|thumb|upright=0.8|left|[[Rajiv Gandhi]]'s Congress party lost state-level elections in 1985 after it endorsed the Supreme Court's decision supporting Bano but later reversed its stand.]]
The Shah Bano case soon became nationwide political issue and a widely debated controversy.{{sfn|Lawrence|Karim|2007|p=265–267}} Many conditions, like the Supreme court's recommendation, made her case have such public and political interest. After the [[1984 anti-Sikh riots]], [[Religion in India|minorities in India]], with Muslims being the largest, felt threatened with the need to safeguard their culture.{{sfn|Lawrence|Karim|2007|p=265–267}} The [[All India Muslim Personal Law Board|All India Muslim Board]] defended the application of their laws and supported the Muslim conservatives who accused the government of promoting Hindu dominance over every Indian citizen at the expense of minorities. The Criminal Code was seen as a threat to the Muslim Personal Law, which they considered their cultural identity.{{sfn|Lawrence|Karim|2007|p=262–264}} According to them, the judiciary recommending a uniform civil code was evidence that Hindu values would be imposed over every Indian.{{sfn|Lawrence|Karim|2007|p=262–264}}
Line 92 ⟶ 94:
== Legal status and prospects ==
UCC had been included in BJP's manifesto for the [[1998 Indian general election|1998]] and [[2019 Indian general elections|2019 elections]], and was even proposed for introduction in the Parliament for the first time in November 2019 by [[Narayan Lal Panchariya]]. Amid protests by other MPs, the bill was soon withdrawn for making certain amendments.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Chari|first=Seshadri|title=Modi govt has been working for a Uniform Civil Code and we didn't even notice. Until now|url=https://theprint.in/opinion/modi-govt-has-been-working-for-a-uniform-civil-code-and-we-didnt-even-notice-until-now/278053/|publisher=The Print|date=2019-08-16|access-date=2020-08-22}}</ref><ref name="AM Jigeesh">{{Cite news|author=Jigeesh|first=AM|date=2019-12-06|title=After objections, BJP member withdraws Bill for UCC|publisher=The Hindu Business Line|url=https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/national/after-objections-bjp-member-withdraws-bill-for-ucc/article30217193.ece|access-date=2020-08-22}}</ref> The bill was brought for a second time by [[Kirodi Lal Meena]] in March 2020, but was not introduced again.<ref>{{Cite news|author=Joy|first=Shemin|date=2020-03-13|title=BJP MP once again does not introduce Uniform Civil Code Bill|publisher=Deccan Herald|___location=New Delhi|url=https://www.deccanherald.com/national/north-and-central/bjp-mp-once-again-does-not-introduce-uniform-civil-code-bill-813445.html|access-date=2020-09-14}}</ref> As per reports which emerged in 2020, the bill's specifics are being contemplated by the BJP due to its topical differences with the RSS.<ref name="Ramchandran">{{Cite news|author=Ramchandran|first=Smriti Kak|date=2020-08-06|title=BJP, RSS hope for consensus on Uniform Civil Code|newspaper=The Hindu|url=https://m.hindustantimes.com/india-news/bjp-rss-hope-for-consensus-on-ucc/story-ASFagZCCQPEIfQT59HMgkK.html|access-date=2020-08-22}}{{Dead link|date=July 2025 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last=Sharma|first=Vibha|title=UCC next on Modi govt agenda?|url=https://m.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/ucc-next-on-modi-govt-agenda-123130|newspaper=The Tribune|date=2020-08-06|access-date=2020-08-22|archive-date=1 July 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230701075743/https://m.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/ucc-next-on-modi-govt-agenda-123130|url-status=dead}}</ref>
A plea was filed in the [[Delhi High Court]] which sought establishment of a judicial commission or a high level expert committee to direct the central government to prepare a draft of UCC in three months. In April 2021, a request was filed to transfer the plea to the Supreme Court so that filing of more such pleas throughout various high courts doesn't bring inconsistency throughout India. The draft would further be published on the website for 60 days to facilitate extensive public debate and feedback.<ref name="LiveLawAPR21">{{Cite news|last=Ojha|first=Drishti|date=2021-04-11|title=Plea In Supreme Court Seeks Transfer Of Plea For Uniform Civil Code From Delhi High Court To SC|url=https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-uniform-civil-code-delhi-high-court-transfer-of-case-ucc-172432|newspaper=LiveLaw|access-date=2021-04-21}}</ref>
| |||