Strike a fine balance, have a just civil code

Source– The post is based on the article “Strike a fine balance, have a just civil code” published in “The Hindu” on 24th June 2023.

Syllabus: GS1- Social empowerment. GS2- Indian polity

Relevance- Issues related to secularism and gender justice

News- On June 14, the Law Commission of India decided to solicit views and proposals from the public about the Uniform Civil Code (UCC).

Why is the issue of personal laws and UCC related to the question of personal and religious autonomy versus the state’s authority?

Each religious group has cultural autonomy. So, the community should itself seek reforms. This is the justification for the adoption of internal law reform or voluntary UCC. Article 29(1) of the Indian constitution also conserves the distinctive culture of all citizens.

In fact, the Special Marriage Act, 1954 and the Indian Succession Act, 1925 are nothing but examples of voluntary adoption of the UCC.

There are also regional differences. Kerala had abolished the Hindu Joint Family in 1975.  Muslim marriage and divorces are to be registered in Bengal, Bihar, Odisha, Jharkhand under the 1876 law, and in Assam under 1935 law.

At present, not just Muslims but even Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs, Parsis, and Jews are governed by their own personal laws.

It is the religious identity that determines which personal law would apply to a group of individuals. Even reformed Hindu Personal Law under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 does insist on solemnization of marriage, through seven steps around fire.

What are the points that should be considered by the Law Commission while deciding about UCC?

Unity rather than uniformity– The Commission must consider the fact that India is a diverse and multicultural polity. The proposed UCC must reflect India’s ‘mosaic model’ of multiculturalism.

Under the Indian Constitution, the right to cultural autonomy defends the Indian model of multiculturalism.

India’s multicultural diversity is at the crossroads with values such as secularism. India decided not to adopt the French model of secularism. Indian society ‘accommodates’ and not just ‘tolerates’ the wide array of group and ethnic differences.

A homogenising lithification of identities should not be preferred. Unity is far more important than uniformity. The British brought homogeneity amongst Hindus and Muslims by undermining heterogeneity within the two religious’ communities.

Focus on gender justice– 21st Law Commission had favoured equality between men and women in communities rather than equality between communities. A just code should be the primary goal as just laws are more important than one uniform law.

Multiculturalism cannot justify the continuation of unjust and discriminatory personal laws. Such provisions of the personal laws must be made consistent with substantive equality and gender justice goals.

Accommodation of different viewpoints– There is need to understand that when a community feels threatened, community allegiance becomes much stronger.

Therefore, the Law Commission of India should not contribute to the rise of reactive culturalism amongst different communities in India, including Muslims.

The Muslim community too must understand that the MPL and Islam are not one and the same. The MPL is a jurist given law and is not entirely divine. It is more appropriate to call it Anglo-Muhammadan law.