UCC Need of the Hour: Former SC Judge Says States Cannot Implement It Individually
Former SC Judge Justice Sanjay Karol argues that a Uniform Civil Code is the need of the hour and must be implemented centrally, not by states.
In a significant discourse on the legal landscape of India, former Supreme Court judge Justice Sanjay Karol has asserted that a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is the need of the hour to bring uniformity to the nation's laws. Speaking at the National Legal Dialogue on Article 44 and UCC, organized by the Bharat Collective Foundation, Justice Karol emphasized that while opinions on the matter may vary, a centralized civil code is essential for the country.
Central Authority Over State Implementation
Justice Karol raised critical questions regarding the feasibility of individual states implementing their own versions of the UCC, given the immense diversity across the Indian landscape. He argued that a uniform civil code is intended for the entire country and, therefore, only the central government possesses the authority and capacity to create central legislation on the matter.
This sentiment was echoed by Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court, Romy Chacko. He pointed out that state-specific UCCs would likely be tailored to local social and customary circumstances, which could lead to inconsistencies. Chacko warned that such a fragmented approach might allow people to bypass the law simply by changing their place of residence.
Lessons from Bihar and the Spirit of Secularism
During the dialogue, Justice Karol highlighted the state of Bihar as a prime example of secularism and social harmony. He suggested that those wishing to understand the essence of Article 44 should visit Bihar, noting that the state's social bonding is evident during festivals like Chhat Pooja, where people from every community participate regardless of their caste.
The Historical Context and the 'Divide and Rule' Policy
The event also featured insights from Manu Gaur, a member of the UCC drafting and rule-making committee for Uttarakhand—a state that has already enacted the UCC. Gaur reflected on India's colonial past, stating that the British utilized religion and caste to govern through a policy of "divide and rule."
Gaur specifically mentioned that the British introduced Sharia law as a tool to create a rift between Hindus and Muslims. He contrasted the nature of marriage across religions, describing it as a sanskar (sacrament) for Hindus, whereas in other religions, it is viewed as a contract. He argued that while a contract can be terminated, a sanskar cannot.
The Fight for Women's Rights
Drawing attention to landmark legal battles, Manu Gaur referenced the cases of Shah Bano and Saurabh Bano to underscore the necessity of a UCC. He noted that before these cases, the rights of Muslim women were largely unknown. He further revealed that these cases were initiated by Muslim women from Uttarakhand and mentioned that a petition against the practice of Halala is currently pending.
Evolution of Marriage Laws in India
The program, conducted by senior advocate Kirti Uppal, also touched upon the evolution of Hindu marriage laws. Uppal recalled the era before the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, noting that there were no limits on the number of wives a Hindu man could have. He explained that the introduction of the Act was a pivotal move to eliminate the problems associated with bigamy and polygamy.
The dialogue also saw contributions from Rajya Sabha MP Sujeet Kumar, Chairman of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice, who shared his perspectives on the implementation and necessity of the code.