Impractical and illogical

For the BJP, its demand for a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) since 1998 and in the 2019 parliamentary election has been cropping up every time an election is around the corner. With Article 370 out of the way and temple construction at Ayodhya under process, the UCC is perhaps the only weapon left in the party’s arsenal. The UCC had remained as unfinished item on BJP’s political agenda. In 2015 the BJP government constituted the 21st Law Commission for legislating the UCC. The 21st Law Commission after ascertaining views from various sections for over two years, concluded that personal laws did not contradict the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. It therefore, concluded that UCC is undesirable and unnecessary. Quite understandably, this did not go down well with the BJP government at the Centre, as it sat over the recommendations for five years. Then on February 21,2020 the Centre constituted the 22nd law commission for a period of three years for the same purpose. The term of the 22nd Law Commission expired in 2023 but its term was extended till August 2024. The 22nd Law Commission of India has decided to solicit views and ideas of the public and recognized religious organizations on UCC by giving 30 days w.e.f. June 14,2023. As per Article 44 of the Constitution (Directive Principles of State Policy) States have the right to legislate on a UCC. Part IV of Article 44 states: “The State shall endeavour to secure the citizen a Uniform Civil Code throughout the territory of India.” There are genuine apprehensions that a proposal for a uniform civil code coming from the BJP will ultimately be less about uniformity and equality and more about encroaching on the personal laws of minority and tribal communities. The BJP government at the Centre has made much about sounding genuine in respect of UCC or One Law for One nation but has so far done little about bringing laws dealing with crimes against women in the name of honour and coercive and forced marriages. Rather, what is being debated are essentially a comprise for a common set of laws governing marriage, divorce, succession, adoption, guardianship and inheritance. However, two questions arise: whether this uniformity is desirable in a country with immense diversity of customary practice; and whether tinkering with the constitutional protection for personal laws of every religion is appropriate? Constitutionally, the Sixth Schedule provides protection to Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, Andhra Pradesh and Goa with respect to family law. The provisions allow for the setting of up autonomous districts and autonomous regions. Article 371 A of the Constitution envisaged special treatment to Nagaland, recognising its social conditions vis-a-vis the stages of development in the rest of the country. Similar exemptions existed for other States in the region. If many in India resist the call for a Uniform Civil Code, it is precisely because they understand this to be a call for consequent attribution to majoritarian politics. It needs to be realised that a uniform civil code was important for national integration; but cultural differences also informed people’s identity and their preservation guaranteed the territorial integrity of a nation. The UCC is only causing division among communities and at the same time, reducing them to polarised entities as vote banks for politics.