What next after triple Talaq…..? …A Uniform Civil Code ?
The Supreme Court’s recent and landmark decision making triple talaq illegal has been hailed by most. Taking the matter further ….Is the time right now for a Uniform Civil Code? Most people feel so, now that the Supreme Court has dealt the first blow on personal laws. But it’s not going to be easy. The debate on personal laws has been on for decades with no real solution.
The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) issue was first raised even before independence in the 1930’s by the All India Women’s Conference seeking equal rights for women in matters of religion marriage, divorce and succession. However it was kept in cold storage as a ‘ Directive Principle’ in the Constitution meaning that it was desirable and could be enacted in the future…..and thus we are still waiting!
The issue of a Uniform Civil Code is complicated as different religions have different practices with respect to social and community life. Many of them regressive and against women but the State does not interfere as long as the personal religious laws do not outright violate constitutional rights. Also most oppressive laws pertaining to Hinduism have been weeded out by codifying Hindu laws while framing the Constitution itself. It is far easier to frame laws of reform for the majority religion rather than the minority which generally view any change as an infringement on their religious space.
This is why the Muslim personal law has not been codified by Parliament except for the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act of 1937. Thus Judges have to therefore rely on Muslim clerics to interpret complex religious issues. That is why in the case of Shah Bano in 1986 pertaining to maintenance of Muslim women the decision of the Supreme Court in favor of the woman to receive alimony from her husband was reversed by the Parliament by amending the law (The Muslim Women Protection of Rights on Divorce Act 1986) fearing religious Muslim leaders and the Muslim vote bank and made alimony to be doled out only during the period of ‘iddat’ or 90 days after divorce.
However Courts have not been deterred by the verdict and in similar cases thereafter upheld its verdict in the Shah Bano case nullifying The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986. Also reforms were made in the areas of succession in case of Hinduism ( daughters under Mitakshara law, were given the statutory right in the coparcenary property of their fathers) and in case of divorce rights (provides same grounds for husband and wife for seeking dissolution of marriage.) in case of Christianity.
Another view also gaining ground is that instead of pushing for a uniform code, which would be difficult to enact and arrive at common ground appeasing all religions; it would be instead better to root out gender bias and injustice from existing personal laws.
Whatever be the case religion cannot take shield behind the principle of ‘freedom of religion’ for maintaining unjust practices and it is the tenet of ‘equality’ that should reign supreme
The State owes its citizens personal laws that stamp out oppression and discrimination and that time has come…… and that time is now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohd._Ahmed_Khan_v._Shah_Bano_Begum
