Uniform Civil Code: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 07:46, 29 July 2025

Revision as of 07:48, 29 July 2025

Line 18:

The Lex Loci Report of October 1840 emphasised the importance and necessity of uniformity in [[codification (law)|codification]] of Indian law, relating to crimes, evidences and contract but it recommended that [[personal law]]s of Hindus and Muslims should be kept outside such codification.<ref name="Banerjee1984">{{cite book|author=Banerjee|first=Anil Chandra|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=7MXExXXb9usC&pg=PA134|title=English Law in India|publisher=Abhinav Publications|year=1984|isbn=978-81-7017-183-6|page=134|access-date=26 September 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170217053133/https://books.google.com/books?id=7MXExXXb9usC&pg=PA134|archive-date=17 February 2017|url-status=live}}</ref> According to their understanding of religious divisions in India, the British separated this sphere which would be governed by religious scriptures and customs of the various communities (Hindus, Muslims, Christians and later [[Parsi]]s).{{sfn|Sarkar|Sarkar|2008|p=2–3}} These laws were applied by the local courts or [[panchayat]]s when dealing with regular cases involving civil disputes between people of the same religion; the State would only intervene in exceptional cases. Thus, the British let the Indian public have the benefit of self-government in their own domestic matters with the Queen's 1859 Proclamation promising absolute non-interference in religious matters.{{sfn|Chavan|Kidwai|2006|p=66–67}}{{sfn|Sarkar|Sarkar|2008|p=263}} The personal laws involved inheritance, succession, marriage and religious ceremonies. The public sphere was governed by the British and Anglo-Indian law in terms of crime, land relations, laws of contract and evidence—all this applied equally to every citizen irrespective of religion.{{sfn|Sarkar|Sarkar|2008|p=263}}

Throughout the country, there was a variation in preference for scriptural or customary laws because in many Hindu and Muslim communities, these were sometimes at conflict;{{sfn|Sarkar|Sarkar|2008|p=2–3}} such instances were present in communities like the [[Jat people|Jats]] and the [[Dravidian people|Dravidians]]. The [[Shudras]], for instance, allowed widow remarriage—completely contrary to the scriptural [[Hindu law]].{{sfn|Sarkar|Sarkar|2008|p=93}} The Hindu laws got preference because of their relative ease in implementation, preference for such a [[Brahmin]]ical system by both British and Indian judges and their fear of opposition from the high caste Hindus.{{sfn|Sarkar|Sarkar|2008|p=93}} The difficulty in investigating each specific practice of any community, case-by-case, made customary laws harder to implement. Towards the end of the nineteenth century, favouring local opinion, the recognition of individual customs and traditions increased.{{sfn|Sarkar|Sarkar|2008|p=263}}

The Muslim Personal law (based on [[Sharia law]]), was not strictly enforced as compared to the Hindu law. It had no uniformity in its application at lower courts and was severely restricted because of bureaucratic procedures. This led to the customary law, which was often more discriminatory against women, to be applied over it. Women, mainly in northern and western India, often were restrained from property inheritance and [[dowry]] settlements, both of which the Sharia provides.{{sfn|Lawrence|Karim|2007|p=262–264}} Due to pressure from the Muslim elite, the Shariat law of 1937 was passed which stipulated that all Indian Muslims would be governed by Islamic laws on marriage, divorce, maintenance, adoption, succession and inheritance.{{sfn|Lawrence|Karim|2007|p=262–264}}