Legal pluralism in personal law (Uniform civil code cannot come in one stroke, but slowly)

Excellent study material for all civil services aspirants - begin learning - Kar ke dikhayenge!

 Legal pluralism in personal law (Uniform civil code cannot come in one stroke, but slowly)

---

Read more on - Polity | Economy | Schemes | S&T | Environment

---

• The 2019 case : The Supreme Court (SC) revived the debate on Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in its 2019 verdict in the Jose Paulo Coutinho v. Maria L V Pareira (2019) case. It praised Goa as an example of an ideal state with a uniform civil code. The Indian judiciary has regularly pushed UCC, more than any political party did!
• Demonising Muslims : In the 1995 case of Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India, the SC criticised the Muslims harshly. It should have criticised the four Hindu men who converted to Islam (to take second wives). Thereby, the SC negated the entire idea of "legal pluralism".
• Complex reality of Goa : The Goa Civil Code of 1867 was given by the Portuguese. Hindus had opposed it, and hence it gave limited freedom to Hindus for polygamy (no male issue, etc.) The same Code gives concessions to Catholics also, and their marriages need not be registered. The SC should have insisted on the reformed Hindu Code Bill rather than Portuguese Civil Code there!
• The 2017 verdict : In the Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) case, the SC bench by majority held the right to follow personal law as a fundamental one. UCC was just a directive principle. In the Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980) case, the SC had clearly said that rights in Part III (fundamental rights) cannot be destroyed to uphold goals of Part IV (directive principles). That would violate the basic structure doctrine.
• Nature of personal laws : They are in concurrent list, and vary from state to state. Constitution makers never wanted total uniformity, or one law for entire India. For CrPC and IPC, states themselves have made many amendments! The MV Act is not uniform, nor is the law for anticipatory bail (across states). The whole idea of "one nation, one law" does not work.
• Hindus : Marriages in close relatives is prohibited by Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, but south India doesn't believe that! The Hindu Code Bill accepts different customs for different Hindu communities. Wives are still not coparceners (a person who shares equally with others in the inheritance of an undivided estate or in the rights to it). Issue is that of gender justice.
• Other examples : Within Muslims and Christians too, there is no uniformity in personal laws. Laws in Nagaland, Meghalaya and Mizoram are as per local customs, and constitutionally protected.
• Land laws : In addition to personal laws, the states have land laws that are gender unjust, and kept in Ninth Schedule (hence out of judicial purview).
• The danger in rushing through : The Union govt. has not made any expert committee so far, and many beneficial provisions in Hindu Law may be left out of any proposed UCC (like income tax benefits for joint Hindu family, etc.). Demands are to include dower (payment by husband) to wife during marriage!
• 2018 Law Commission advice : "Do not make UCC, as it is neither desirable nor feasible in India".
• Summary : The vast social and community diversity, and compelling historical reasons point towards the impracticality of forcing a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) on Indians.

Read more on - Polity | Economy | Schemes | S&T | Environment

Join UPSC Self Prep course | Online Course (PT Gurukul)  | Covid Special Course | Join PT courses

* Content sourced from free internet sources (publications, PIB site, international sites, etc.). Take your own subscriptions. Copyrights acknowledged.