One country, two laws, two ways to treat the citizens of the same nation, weird, shocking but true. India, a country ruled by the Constitution of India, the Acts enacted by Parliament as well as the Personal Laws. A need for single law for the whole of nation was felt while making the constitution itself and article 44 of the constitution itself says that the state stall endeavor to secure for the citizens a Uniform Civil Code throughout the territory of India.
Uniform Civil Code means that all citizens of India will be governed by the same set of ivil laws in matters of marriage, divorce, maintenance, adoption, inheritance etc. It is to note here that as per the Hindu Marriage Act, a male is punished with an imprisonment of seven years if he brings in a second wife, but a male is allowed as per the Muslim Personal Laws. The laws for divorce is also different for both the communities, however, it’s been regularized as per the latest Supreme Court judgment, wherein talaq now requires scrutiny by the Court of Law. Similarly whereas Hindus have a comprehensive Act enacted on adoption this concept is not recognized by the personal laws of Christians and Parsees.
In 1985, the Supreme Court reminded the Parliament in very strong terms to frame a Uniform Civil Code in Shah Bano case. In this case a very poor muslim woman claimed maintenance from her husband u/s 125 of CRPC, after she was divorced by her husband. The Supreme Court held that she did have such a right and observe that even the Quran imposed an obligation on a muslim husband to make a provision for his divorced wife. The response to this judgment was strong and reactionary. Strong protests and disturbance erupted and the anger flared up. To mollify the anger of the minority, the govt. led by Prime Minister Late Rajeev Gandhi immediately sprung into the action and the Parliament passed the Muslim Women’s (Protection of Rights in Divorce) Act 1986, which nullified the decision of SC passed in Shah Bano’s case. The second case when the SC again strongly reminded the parliament the need of Uniform Civil code was in Sarla Mudgal vs. Union of India, when in question on the legality of the second marriage of a hindu husband after getting converted into Islam was in question. The court decided against the legality of such marriage and strongly recommended the necessity of the Uniform Civil Code.
Uniform Civil Code is guided by the basic ideology of equality and equal protection of laws enshrined in our constitution but this issue has become controversial because of two reasons. Firstly it touches the personal laws of different religions and secondly because different political parties use it for their political mileage and make it more controversial and then an unending acrimonious debate on this issue starts.
One must understand that Uniform Civil Code is not a weapon directed against any particular community. It is simply a code that puts all the citizens of India irrespective of their caste, religion or gender under one umbrella when the constitution of the nation guarantees equality. Allowing discrimination on the ground of religion and gender is totally unconstitutional, unethical, unwanted, unwarranted and unlawful.
