Uniform Civil Code: Towards Gender

Justice

Abstract
This article examines the idea of a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) as a possible tool for
attaining gender equity in multicultural societies. Implementing a UCC has long been
a topic of discussion, especially in nations with a history of differing personal laws.
The effects of a UCC on women's rights, social justice, and gender equality are
examined in this article. The research attempts to offer a thorough understanding of
the function of a Uniform Civil Code in advancing gender justice by examining legal
frameworks, societal viewpoints, and international practices.

Introduction
India currently has a number of family laws, such as the Hindu Marriage Act, the
Parsee Marriage Act, the Christian Marriage Act, the Muslim Personal Law and the
Divorce Act. Anyone can officiate a marriage under the 1954 Special Marriage Act,
regardless of the faith practised by either party. There are different personal laws for
Muslims and Hindus. Hindu legislation has experienced substantial modernization
and secularisation through legislative enactments, whereas Muslim law remains
traditional and unaltered. India has both statutory and non-statutory family laws,
each with its own distinct set of regulations pertaining to marriage.[1] To attain
equality, homogeneity of legislation, non-discrimination and secularization, a
common civil code for all Indian citizens is to be made available to them, as stated in
Article 44 of the Constitution. Nonetheless, Article 37 of the Indian Constitution states
that part IV of the constitution, regardless of its intrinsic importance to the nation's
government, is unenforceable in any court.

UCC and Gender Equality

The chairman of the Law Commission of India, Justice B.S. Chauhan, recently stated
in an interview that the Uniform Civil Code will guarantee gender equality and justice.
He said that if any changes are made to the UCC, they should not interfere with
religious freedom since the Law Commission is now gathering input on the matter
from many parties. But the fundamental query behind it is whether or not UCC
reform and religious freedom can coexist?

There are two possible courses of action: either all personal laws should be codified
and brought into compliance with basic rights, or the UCC will replace all personal
laws with new legislation. AIMPLB has lately abstained from responding to the Law
Commission of India's inquiry, indicating their dissatisfaction with UCC; in contrast,
the Hindu Mahasabha, RSS, and Viswa Hindu Parishad have been vocal in their
support of UCC. Therefore, different organisations are not in agreement over UCC.
There are rumours that UCC is used as a club to beat minorities, particularly
Muslims.

Within the state of Goa, the Goa UCC peacefully coexists with a number of personal
laws. They don't both stand for either/or options. Therefore, if it is approved, UCC will
be an option, much like the Special Marriage Act. It is protected under the
Constitution's Articles 25 and 26. Nonetheless, both pieces touch on issues of public
order, morality, health, and social justice and equality. As a result, traditions like
caste prejudice, polygamy, triple talaq, and sati may be outlawed.[2]

There is a close relationship between gender justice and UCC. A number of modern
problems, including freedom, secularism, and religion, are impeding the justice and
equality of women. Personal laws have many provisions that discriminate against
women. In our country, UCC is required to protect women's rights and interests.
Additionally, Article 44 of the Constitution provided guidelines for implementing the
UCC. Why can't all Indian citizens, regardless of caste, be covered by a uniformly
applicable UCC in our country? No personal law is the same for any group because
different groups are subject to different laws. For example, In India, Christians are
subject to the Cochin Christian Succession Act 1921, the Indian Christian Marriage
Act 1989, the Indian Divorce Act 1969, and other laws, while Parsis are subject to
different laws.

As far as we are aware, 1955 and 1956 saw the codification of Hindu law. Before
then, Hindus were highly likely to be polygamous. According to Hindu law, the only
states where a woman can be a coparcener are Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra,
Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu. In addition, Hindu women are not granted the same
rights during partition as Hindu men. Even though she is the legal heir, she cannot
claim partition in dwelling house cases. [3] Hindu women who are married are not
generally allowed to adopt children on their own. Throughout her husband's life, she
is unable to act as their natural guardian. That being said, numerous provisions that
discriminate against women persist even after Hindu law was codified. A Christian is
not allowed to leave any property to charitable or religious trusts, according to
discriminatory provisions in the Indian Succession Act that the Supreme Court
recently brought to light.

Compared to other personal laws, women's status is substantially worse under

Muslim law. Muslim women had a lower status than Muslim men in all spheres of life
prior to the Arabic era. Muslim women are granted equal rights in every way by the
Quran, along with a respected status. However, Muslim women still do not have
access to the equal rights outlined in the Quran even now. The main cause of this is
the absence of codification in Muslim law. As a result, various subgroups have
diverse interpretations of Islamic law.
A Muslim male is allowed to marry four times. That implies that polygamy is
permitted by Islamic law. Additionally, the Muslim Shia community recognizes mutta
marriages, which are transient unions. However, Muslim women's circumstances are
the worst when it comes to divorce. The instant kind of talaq, known as
talaq-e-biddat, is recognized by Sunnis. In this case, talaq took effect as soon as the
husband said it three times in a row. It's an unchangeable form of talaq.[4] Even
though the Prophet Muhammad disapproved of it, the majority of Muslim men
nevertheless follow it because different scholars have given different interpretations
of Muslim law. So, in order to safeguard women's interests, UCC must be
implemented immediately in our nation. A Muslim man can inherit twice as much
property as a Muslim woman, even in matters of succession. If a Muslim woman is
eligible for maintenance, she cannot continue to receive it after the iddat period. Do
Muslims have to abide by Section 125 of the Cr.P.C? Muslims are also covered by
Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and the Shah Bano case ruling specifies that Muslims are
still eligible for maintenance after the iddat period. However, the Muslim Women
(Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 was passed in an attempt to overturn the
decision made in the Shah Bano case. Maintenance is available to Muslim
women who are alive after this act is passed, up until the iddat period, unless she
and her spouse register their desire to have the laws of the Commonwealth applied
to them at the appropriate time. Nevertheless, subsequently, in Daniel Latifi's case,
the Supreme Court held once more that Muslims are covered by section 125 of the
Cr.P.C. and deemed the act unconstitutional.

Present Scenario in Our Country

Women continue to fight against gender discrimination despite seven decades of
independence, primarily due to religious beliefs. Women face discrimination in India
based on their religion. However, the decisions made by the temple trusts in Shani
Shingnapur and Trimbakeshwar to permit women's entry inside the premises
represent a progressive step toward gender equality. Promoting gender equality is
another of UCC's primary goals.

Following its hearing of numerous marriage cases, many of which involved Muslim
women, the Supreme Court made observations. It reminded the current
administration on a regular basis to investigate the application of UCC in the nation.
The Law Commission has been asked by the current Modi government to assess
whether enforcing UCC nationwide is feasible. One of the main causes of UCC's
absence in our nation is the lack of political consensus. This is due to the fact that a
lot of political parties were afraid of losing the vote banks of the minority if they
backed UCC. As a result, a number of political parties criticize the UCC, engaging in
the worst possible communal behaviours that no one can imagine. With the
exception of Islam, every religion has changed its personal laws to reflect various
social reforms. All that hasn't changed over the ages is Muslim law.[5]
Minorities, particularly Muslims, have always opposed UCC. Since Muslim personal
laws are derived from the Quran and are not enacted by parliament, the Supreme
Court lacks jurisdiction over them; according to a statement from the private
organization AIMPLB, Art. 13 of the Constitution cannot be applied to Muslim law
because it states that Muslim law is a religious matter and does not fall under the
purview of human-made law. Many Islamic nations have unified laws based on
Shariat, and both Muslims and non-Muslims are subject to them. These nations took
pride in their Muslim identity. What is the reason behind AIMPLB's concern that if
Indian Muslims are subject to the same civil laws, they will all stop being Muslims?
What issue would there be if they were subject to comparable civil and criminal laws,
given that their criminal laws are not even derived from Shariat law, unlike other
Islamic nations? Only when we have the answers to these questions will we be able
to determine the underlying cause of this.

AIMPLB and several other legal experts vehemently objected to a questionnaire that
the Law Commission recently posted in an attempt to get public input on the
application of UCC. The argument put forth was that the focus is mainly on Muslim
law, while other religious communities' private laws contain discriminatory practices
that are ignored. It seemed to them that the Muslim community was the intended
target, and Muslim law emphasises its negative characteristics rather than its
positive ones.

In an interview, eminent legal scholar Flavia Agnes stated that the questionnaire
failed to draw attention to detrimental aspects of Hindu law, such as dowry deaths.
She stated that it is inappropriate to bring up any topic in the way that it has been.
She explained that we must first have a conversation before preparing a draft and
presenting it to the relevant parties after obtaining the consent of minority
communities. She also said that, although in different ways, all personal laws
discriminate against women. According to her, the Hindu Marriage Act's sec. 7
rituals, such as the kanyadan, are discriminatory. She revealed that after marriage,
women are regarded as paraya dhan under Hindu law, which is discriminatory.[6]

Suggestions
Minority groups in India, particularly Muslims, are constantly unhappy and resentful
of the UCC. Therefore, it would be unwise to bring up this sensitive subject at the
expense of offending Indian minorities. First, the Muslim Personal Law needs to be
codified. The community's backwardness and the Muslim leadership's lack of
bravery and fear are the main barriers to the reform of Muslim personal law. Thus, in
order to ascertain the opinions of the minority communities, the government ought to
hold referendums there.

The government must encourage the public to understand the importance of Article
44 to foster a favourable environment for the implementation of UCC. A government
that wants to protect minorities from enforcing foreign laws must reassure them of
this. The government cannot enact UCC without first considering Articles 25 and 26
of the Constitution. Additionally, one should evaluate the legality and enforceability of
Article 44. If such measures are adopted, then Article 44 will be implemented in India
without any problem.

Conclusion
Currently, the only group opposed to any attempt to impose UCC in our nation is the
Muslim community itself. In their eyes, UCC was attacking their right to practice their
religion. Though many other Islamic countries have done so, why can't Indian
Muslims amend their private laws that were passed in the 1930s?[7] The
Constitution is the highest law in India, a secular nation. The Constitution
supersedes personal law, no matter how sacred it is. Should a codified civil law
system be implemented in the nation, Indian Muslims should not object if there
already exists a secular criminal code that they recognize, despite it not being a
sharia law.[8]

UCC is crucial to our nation because it will advance gender equality and justice.
Additionally, as stated in our constitution's Preamble, it will uphold integrity and unity.
However, Article 44 of the Indian Constitution must become enforceable before this
can be accomplished.

In India, various religious communities have their own civil law customs related to
marriage, adoption, and other matters. These communities include the Hindu,
Mohammedan, Christian, and Parsi communities. However, there isn't a single family
law in India that applies to all of the country's religious groups. Ensuring that every
individual receives the dignity they deserve is the primary goal of UCC. Every human
being is not treated with dignity by personal laws in a number of ways. The main aim
of UCC is to unite by nationality and not to divide by religion.