Uniform Civil Code: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 15:20, 29 July 2025

Revision as of 15:22, 29 July 2025

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}} TheSince the British feared opposition from orthodox community leaders, only the Indian Succession Act 1865, which was also one of the first laws to ensure women's economic security, attempted to shift the personal laws to the realm of [[Civil law (common law)|civil]]. The Indian Marriage Act 1864 had procedures and reforms solely for Christian marriages.{{sfn|Samaddar|2005|p=50–51}}

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}}