What framers of our Constitution mentioned about UCC and why they did not implement it
11 min readBy Ramesh Sharma: “If a house has one law for one member and another law for another member, can the house run? How will the country run with a dual system? We should remember that the Constitution of India also talks about equal rights of citizens. The Supreme Court has also asked on many occasions to implement the Common Civil Code (Uniform Civil Code).”
This comment by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, whereas addressing BJP employees in Bhopal on June 27, has reignited the talk on the contentious concern of a standard civil legislation. Speculation is rife that the UCC invoice might come up in Parliament as early because the Monsoon Session beginning July 20. There can be intense chatter about its possible contours; its impression on non secular practices, range, tribal customs, the Hindu Undivided Family underneath the Income-Tax Act, and so forth.
ALSO READ | ‘Keep tribals out’: Parliamentary panel discusses UCC with Centre, legislation fee
Notably, Prime Minister Modi’s push for a UCC got here lower than a fortnight after the twenty second Law Commission on June 14 had requested most of the people and recognised non secular organisations to provide their opinion on UCC inside a month. Even the Supreme Court had really useful the implementation of UCC on a number of events. But it’s the timing of PM Modi’s assertion that has sparked a pitched debate on the UCC.
The opposition alleges that PM Modi’s social gathering, the BJP, is making an attempt to polarise voters forward of the 2024 elections. On the opposite hand, political analysts say the BJP has set the agenda for the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. So, the battle strains are drawn between the ruling BJP and the opposition Congress; the talk is split; completely different stakeholders are voicing their pursuits; the fronts are open.
However, as Prime Minister Modi cited the Constitution and the Supreme Court in his assertion, it’s crucial to first know what the Constitution says a couple of UCC.
UCC IN THE CONSTITUTION
In Part 4 of the Constitution, the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) determine from Articles 36 to 51. And Article 44 is the one which talks a couple of Uniform Civil Code. According to this, a uniform civil legislation needs to be made for all of the residents of the nation. Here it is very important know that the Directive Principles are very best ideas – whereas governments and residents may be inspired to observe them, they don’t seem to be obligatory.
Also, Directive Principles aren’t “enforceable” in a court docket of legislation. Considered as a super state of political governance, it’s believed that if the state coverage follows the Directive Principles, then public welfare and social concord will enhance. To make the Directive Principles “enforceable” in a court docket of legislation, the federal government must legislate on the DPSP articles individually. Sometimes Directive Principles may conflict with the Fundamental Rights.
DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES VS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
A bit of authorized consultants believes {that a} Uniform Civil Code will go in opposition to the basic rights of non secular freedom (Articles 25-28). In Part 3 of the Constitution, there’s a provision of elementary rights from Articles 12 to 35. In a super scenario, Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles are mentioned to enhance one another. But many instances a scenario of battle and dispute has arisen between them. In actuality, these are two sides of a scale, and it’s the job of the governments to strike a steadiness between the 2.
Disputes between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles are understood and settled on the premise of parliamentary debates and judicial selections. There have been some landmark judgments on the conflict between Directive Principles and Fundamental Rights. Two of the judgments are within the Golaknath vs State of Punjab (1967) and the Kesavananda Bharti vs State of Kerala (1973) circumstances.
Now, because the UCC bowling ball gathers steam, allow us to rewind to the black-and-white period of the Constituent Assembly that debated, mentioned and thrashed out a whole lot of legal guidelines earlier than giving us the Constitution of India.
UCC IN CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY
The concern of a Uniform Civil Code was debated vigorously within the Constituent Assembly after Independence.
The nation was witnessing the tragedy of Partition at the moment. The largescale communal violence had created an environment of distrust. Implementing a Uniform Civil Code within the nation was a problem.
Mohammad Ali Jinnah and the Muslim League had already mentioned that the “Congress government of Hindus” wouldn’t enable Muslims to reside in response to Islam. For them there shall be discrimination on the premise of faith in India. In such a scenario, the Uniform Civil Code was put within the Directive Principles of State Policy within the hope that someday sooner or later, a legislation could possibly be made and carried out.
After that, UCC has figured in political debates and electoral politics occasionally.
On November 23, 1948, the difficulty of UCC was raised for the primary time within the Constituent Assembly.
It was proposed by Congress’s Meenu Masani, a member of the Constituent Assembly from Bombay (now Mumbai), resulting in a vigorous and expansive debate on the topic. At that point, UCC figured underneath Article 35.
LEADERS WHO SUPPORTED UCC
The Uniform Civil Code first obtained assist from ladies members.
There had been 15 ladies members within the Constituent Assembly. Hansa Mehta was amongst these 15, and he or she lobbied for a UCC as a member of the Fundamental Rights Sub-Committee.
Apart from them, Rajkumari Amrit Kaur, Dr Bhimrao Ambedkar, Meenu Masani, Kanhaiyalal Maniklal Munshi, Alladi Krishnaswami Iyer vociferously supported the implementation of a UCC and argued strongly in its favour.
Almost the complete Congress, together with then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, was additionally in assist of a UCC.
LEADERS WHO OPPOSED IT
Mohammad Ismail, a member from Madras (now Chennai), was the primary to oppose a UCC within the Constituent Assembly.
Ismail was a part of a bunch of 5 Muslim members, which included Naziruddin Ahmed, Mehboob Ali Baig, B Pokar Saheb, and Ahmed Ibrahim, that introduced an modification in opposition to the UCC. Apart from this, Urdu poet Maulana Hasrat Mohani, who gave the slogan of ‘Inquilab Zindabad’, additionally took half within the debate and opposed the UCC.
The contours of the debates and arguments from each side of the divide give an concept of the hopes and fears of the political and social class of the time, as additionally the framers and pioneers who got down to draft a brand new Constitution of India.
KEY HIGHLIGHTS OF CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY DEBATE ON UCC Arguments put forth in favour of a Uniform Civil Code
1. Promoting Gender Equality:
– Implementing a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) would eradicate discriminatory practices prevalent in private legal guidelines and set up equality between women and men.
– Personal legal guidelines typically discriminate in opposition to ladies relating to inheritance, marriage, divorce, and upkeep rights. A UCC would guarantee equal rights for girls in these issues.
2. National Unity and Integration:
– A UCC would foster nationwide unity by transcending non secular and group divisions, selling a way of widespread citizenship.
– Personal legal guidelines, based mostly on faith or group, are inclined to perpetuate variations and divisions amongst residents, hindering the nation’s cohesive cloth.
3. Secularism and Individual Rights:
– Implementing a UCC would uphold the ideas of a secular state, the place non secular beliefs don’t dictate civil issues.
– It would safeguard particular person rights and freedom of alternative, permitting residents to go for a civil legislation system, as an alternative of being sure by non secular legal guidelines.
4. Modernizing Legal System:
– A UCC would deliver India’s authorized system according to world requirements and up to date values, reflecting the wants of a contemporary society.
– Personal legal guidelines, rooted in conventional practices, typically battle with evolving social norms, necessitating a complete and inclusive authorized framework.
5. Harmonizing Diverse Traditions:
– A UCC would attempt to harmonise numerous cultural, regional, and spiritual practices, fostering social cohesion and nationwide integration.
– By creating a standard set of legal guidelines relevant to all residents, a UCC would minimise conflicts arising from variations in private legal guidelines.
Arguments put forth to oppose a Uniform Civil Code
1. Preserving Religious and Cultural Autonomy:
– Opponents argued that implementing a UCC would infringe upon non secular and cultural autonomy, diluting the variety of India’s society.
– Personal legal guidelines are deeply rooted in non secular and cultural traditions, and their preservation was important to guard minority communities’ distinct identities.
2. Violation of Fundamental Rights:
– Critics declare that imposing a UCC would violate the basic proper to freedom of faith, as residents can be compelled to observe a standard civil legislation.
– It was argued that non-public legal guidelines present people with the liberty to apply their faith with out interference from the state.
3. Complexity and Practicality:
– Skeptics argued that formulating a single complete civil legislation that caters to the varied wants of an unlimited nation like India is a fancy activity.
– Implementing and imposing a UCC would require vital administrative, legislative, and judicial efforts, elevating considerations about its practicality.
4. Potential Social Unrest:
– Opponents feared that imposing a UCC might set off social unrest and resentment amongst non secular communities, resulting in societal divisions.
– Personal legal guidelines have lengthy been ingrained in folks’s lives, and any sudden change might disrupt social concord and communal relations.
5. Respect for Diversity and Pluralism:
– Critics emphasised the significance of respecting and acknowledging India’s numerous cultural and spiritual pluralism.
– Personal legal guidelines enable completely different communities to keep up their distinct identities and practices, fostering a multicultural society.
WHO SAID WHAT ON UNIFORM CIVIL CODE
1. Dr BR Ambedkar (Chairman of the Drafting Committee):
– Supported the UCC as a way to advertise gender equality and eradicate discrimination based mostly on private legal guidelines.
– Advocated for a complete civil code that will guarantee equal rights for girls in issues of marriage, divorce, and inheritance.
– Emphasised the necessity for social reform and modernisation, favoring a UCC to interchange private legal guidelines based mostly on faith.
– Stressed the significance of secularism and particular person rights, highlighting the UCC’s potential to foster a unified and progressive nation.
3. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Home Affairs):
– Advocated for a UCC to advertise nationwide integration and eradicate divisions based mostly on non secular or community-based legal guidelines.
– Stressed the importance of making a standard set of legal guidelines relevant to all residents, regardless of their non secular backgrounds.
4. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad (Senior Congress Leader):
– Expressed considerations concerning the potential erosion of non secular autonomy and minority rights with the implementation of a UCC.
– Emphasised the necessity to respect the cultural and spiritual range of India, suggesting that non-public legal guidelines needs to be protected.
5. Dr Rajendra Prasad (President of the Constituent Assembly):
– Supported the thought of a UCC as a way to make sure equal rights for girls and promote gender justice.
– Acknowledged the challenges in implementing a UCC however careworn the significance of modernising India’s authorized system.
6. Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar (Senior Advocate and Member, Constituent Assembly):
– Argued for the UCC, highlighting the necessity to eradicate discrimination in opposition to ladies and set up a uniform civil legislation for all residents.
– Stressed the significance of selling gender equality and social justice by way of a complete civil code.
7. KT Shah (Socialist Leader and Member, Constituent Assembly):
– Raised considerations concerning the potential violation of non secular freedom and minority rights with the imposition of a UCC.
– Proposed a extra gradual method to social reform, advocating for reforms inside private legal guidelines slightly than a whole overhaul.
8. HV Kamath (Member, Constituent Assembly):
– Supported the UCC, emphasising the necessity to set up a unified authorized system that transcends non secular divisions.
– Stressed {that a} UCC would contribute to nationwide integration and guarantee equal rights for all residents.
9. Frank Anthony (Member, Constituent Assembly):
– Expressed reservations about imposing a UCC, emphasising the necessity to respect the cultural range and pluralism of India.
– Highlighted the significance of safeguarding minority rights and permitting communities to keep up their distinct identities.
10. Begum Aizaz Rasul (Member, Constituent Assembly):
– Raised considerations concerning the potential impression of a UCC on Muslim private legal guidelines, advocating for the safety of non secular practices.
– Argued {that a} UCC ought to accommodate the non secular beliefs and traditions of all communities to make sure concord and social cohesion.
11. KM Munshi (Member, Constituent Assembly):
– Strongly supported the UCC, emphasising the necessity to transfer away from religious-based legal guidelines and set up a contemporary and egalitarian authorized framework.
– Stressed the significance of ladies’s rights and social progress within the context of a UCC.
12. Mahavir Tyagi (Member, Constituent Assembly):
– Opposed the UCC, citing considerations about potential unrest and clashes between non secular communities if their private legal guidelines had been abolished.
– Argued that non-public legal guidelines needs to be preserved to guard the distinctive cultural and spiritual identities of various communities.
13. Acharya JB Kripalani (Senior Congress Leader and Member, Constituent Assembly):
– Raised considerations concerning the practicality and implementation challenges of a UCC, suggesting that reforms needs to be launched steadily.
– Advocated for a extra consultative method to deal with the complexities and sensitivities related to private legal guidelines.
14. TT Krishnamachari (Senior Congress Leader and Member, Constituent Assembly):
– Supported the UCC, highlighting the significance of gender equality and the necessity for a unified authorized system in a various nation.
– Emphasised {that a} UCC would promote social justice, eradicate discrimination, and foster a extra harmonious society.
15. N Gopalaswami Ayyangar (Senior Congress Leader and Member, Constituent Assembly):
– Advocated for a UCC, citing the necessity to eradicate discrimination in opposition to ladies and set up a uniform authorized framework for all residents.
– Argued {that a} UCC would contribute to nationwide unity and social cohesion by transcending non secular variations.
16. Maulana Hasrat Mohani (Prominent Muslim Leader and Member, Constituent Assembly):
– Supported the UCC, emphasising the significance of gender justice and equal rights for girls in Muslim private legal guidelines.
– Argued for reforms inside private legal guidelines to align them with the ideas of justice and equality.
17. Hansa Mehta (Social Activist and Member, Constituent Assembly):
– Strongly supported the UCC, stressing the necessity to eradicate gender-based discrimination and guarantee equal rights for girls.
– Argued {that a} UCC would align with the ideas of the Indian Constitution and promote social progress.
18. T Prakasam (Senior Congress Leader and Member, Constituent Assembly):
– Expressed considerations concerning the potential violation of minority rights with the imposition of a UCC, emphasising the necessity for non secular autonomy.
– Suggested that non-public legal guidelines needs to be reformed to deal with gender disparities whereas respecting cultural and spiritual range.
19. Damodar Das Mavlankar (Member, Constituent Assembly):
– Supported the UCC, emphasising the significance of gender equality and the necessity for a unified authorized framework in a contemporary democratic nation.
– Argued that non-public legal guidelines shouldn’t perpetuate discrimination, and a UCC would promote social justice and equal rights for all.
20. Kamalapati Tripathi (Senior Congress Leader and Member, Constituent Assembly):
– Expressed reservations about imposing a UCC, highlighting the potential disruption and conflicts that might come up from abolishing private legal guidelines.
– Advocated for reforms inside private legal guidelines to deal with gender inequalities and promote social concord.
WHAT WAS DERIVED FROM THE DEBATES
The Constituent Assembly debates on the Uniform Civil Code replicate a variety of views and concerns. While proponents emphasised the necessity for gender equality, nationwide unity, and modernisation of the authorized system, opponents careworn the significance of non secular autonomy, minority rights, and cultural range. The discussions surrounding the UCC within the Constituent Assembly had been essential in shaping the long run trajectory of India’s authorized framework, demonstrating the complexities inherent in addressing private legal guidelines in a various and pluralistic society.
(With extra inputs from Anurag Anant, The Lallantop)
