UNIFORM CIVIL CODE

Uniform Civil Code resonates with one country one rule, to be applied to all religious
communities. The term, ‘Uniform Civil Code’ is explicitly mentioned in Part 4, Article 44 of
the Indian Constitution. Article 441 says, “The State shall endeavor to secure for the citizens a
uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.” Uniform Civil Code in India is a widely
debated topic. A Uniform Civil Code means that all sections of the society irrespective of
their religion shall be treated equally according to a national civil code, which shall be
applicable to all uniformly. However, Article 372 of the Constitution itself makes it clear the
DPSP “shall not be enforceable by any court”.
They cover areas like- Marriage, divorce, maintenance, inheritance, adoption and succession
of the property.
Goa is the only Indian state to have a UCC in the form of common family law. The
Portuguese Civil Code that remains in force even today was introduced in the 19th century in
Goa and wasn’t replaced after its liberation.
Although, there have been many instances where the need for Uniform Civil Code has been
felt.
Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum3 commonly referred to as the Shah Bano case,
was a controversial maintenance lawsuit in India. Shah Bano, a 73 year old woman was
divorced by her husband using Triple Talaq and was denied maintenance. She approached the
courts and the District Court and the High Court ruled in her favour. This led to her husband
appealing to the Supreme Court saying that he had fulfilled all his obligations under Islamic
law. The Supreme Court ruled in her favour in 1985 under the “maintenance of wives,
children and parents” provision (Section 125) of the All India Criminal Code, which applied
to all citizens irrespective of religion. The then Chief Justice of India Y.V. Chandrachud
observed that, A common civil code will help the cause of national integration by removing
disparate loyalties to law which have conflicting ideologies. The Shah Bano case had once
again spurred the debate on the Uniform Civil Code in India. After this historic decision,
nationwide discussions, meetings and agitations were held. The then government under
pressure passed The Muslim Women’s (Right to protection on divorce ) Act (MWA) in 1986,
which made Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code inapplicable to Muslim women.
The Supreme Court again directed the government of Article 44 was in the case of Sarla
Mudgal v. Union of India4. In this case, the question was whether a Hindu husband married
under the Hindu law, by embracing Islam, can solemnise a second marriage. The court held
that the Hindu marriage solemnized under Hindu law can only be dissolved on any of the
grounds specified under the Hindu Marriage Act 1955. Conversion to Islam and marrying
again, would not by itself dissolve the Hindu marriage under the act and thus, a second
marriage solemnized after converting to Islam would be an offence under section 494 of
the Indian Penal Code(IPC). Justice Kuldip Singh also opined that Article 44 has to be
retrieved from the cold storage where it is lying since 1949. The Hon'ble Justice referred to
the codification of the Hindu personal law and held, Where more then 80 percent of the
citizens have already been brought under the codified personal law there is no justification
1
The Constitution of India, Bare Act, 1950
2
The Constitution of India, Bare Act, 1950
3
AIR 1985 SC 945
4
AIR 1995 SC 1531
whatsoever to keep in abeyance, any more, the introduction of the 'uniform civil code' for all
the citizens in the territory of India.
Justice R.M. Sahani said that, ours is a secular democratic republic. Freedom of religion is
the core of our culture. Even the slightest of deviation shakes the social fibre. But religious
practices, violative of human rights and dignity and sacerdotal suffocation of essentially civil
and material freedoms are not autonomy but oppression. Therefore, a unified code is
imperative, both, for protection of the oppressed and for promotion of national unity and
solidarity.

The constitutional validity of The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act
1986 was challenged before the Supreme Court in Daniel Latifi & Anr v. Union Of India5 by
Daniel Latifi in 2001, who was the lawyer of Shah Bano in the Shah Bano case. Muslim
Women’s Act (MWA) was challenged on the grounds that it violated the right to equality
under Articles 14& 15 as well as the right to life under Article 216. The Supreme Court while
holding the law as constitutional, harmonised it with section 125 of CrPC and held that the
amount received by a wife during iddat period should be large enough to maintain her during
iddat as well as provide for her future.
The Supreme Court's reminder to the government of its Constitutional obligations to enact a
UCC also came in July 2003 when a Christian priest knocked the doors of the Court
challenging the Constitutional validity of Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act. The
priest from Kerala, John Vallamatton7filed a writ petition in the year 1997 stating that Section
118 of the said Act was discriminatory against the Christians as it impose unreasonable
restrictions on their donation of property for religious or charitable purpose by will. The
bench comprising of Chief Justice of India V.N. Khare, Justice S.B. Sinha and Justice A.R.
Lakshamanan struck down the Section declaring it to be unconstitutional. Chief Justice
Khare stated that, We would like to State that Article 44 provides that the State shall
endeavour to secure for all citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India It is
a matter of great regrets that Article 44 of the Constitution has not been given effect to.
Parliament is still to step in for framing a common civil code in the country. A common civil
code will help the cause of national integration by removing the contradictions based on
ideologies. He stated that It is no matter of doubt that marriage, succession and the like
matters of secular character cannot be brought within the guarantee enshrined under Articles
25 and 26 of the Constitution.

The Modi government in 2016 requested the Law Commission of India to determine how to
form a code in the presence of “thousands of personal laws” in the country. In 2018, the Law
Commission submitted a 185-page consultation paper on the reform of family law. The
paper stated that a unified nation did not necessarily need “uniformity”, adding that
secularism could not contradict the plurality prevalent in the country. In fact, the term
“secularism” had meaning only if it assured the expression of any form of difference, the
Commission noted. the commission has taken a stand in favour of “equality ‘within
communities’ between men and women” (personal law reform), “rather than ‘equality
between’ communities (Uniform Civil Code)”.
5
2001 SC SCC 740
6
The Constitution of India, Bare Act, 1950
7
John Vallamattom v. Union of India AIR 2003 SC 2902
While saying that a UCC “is neither necessary nor desirable at this stage”, the report
recommended that discriminatory practices, prejudices and stereotypes within a particular
religion and its personal laws should be studied and amended. The Commission suggested
certain measures in marriage and divorce that should be uniformly accepted in the personal
laws of all religions. Some of these amendments include fixing the marriageable age for boys
and girls at 18 years so that they are married as equals, making adultery a ground for divorce
for men and women and simplifying the divorce procedure. It also called for the abolition of
the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) as a tax-exempted entity.
It is urged that the legislature should first consider guaranteeing equality within communities
between men and women, rather than equality between communities. The commission
stresses on efforts to reconcile the country's diversity with universal arguments on human
rights.
While the UCC is a long-time poll promise of the BJP, Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju
said in Parliament recently this year that the government currently had no plans to set up a
panel to implement the UCC and requested the 22nd Law Commission of India to undertake
an examination of various issues relating to the same.
BJP president JP Nadda on Tuesday said a uniform civil code will be implemented through
the state level and asserted that the party makes election promises after due diligence, unlike
its rivals. The BJP leader said UCC is an important issue, and the party in power has to run
the country very delicately.
The Indian constitution currently allows different communities to follow their personal laws
for marriage, divorce, inheritance, succession, and adoption. The contentious nature of the
issue is best illustrated by the fact that Article 25 of the constitution upholds the practice and
propagation of religion as a fundamental right while Article 44 lists that the state shall
endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the country, as one of the
directive principles of state policy.

KARNATAKA JUSTICE APPOINTED AS LAW COMMISSION MEMBER

COMMITTEE TO SEE UCC
CURRENT GOVT. STATUS
WHY UCC SHOULD NOT COME INTO PLACE
RELEVANT ACADEMIC RESEARCH PAPERS

One of the significant advantages of a UCC is its potential to

promote gender equality. In the existing system, personal laws
based on religious practices often discriminate against women,
particularly in matters of inheritance, divorce, and maintenance.
Implementing a UCC can ensure equal rights for women in all
communities, empowering them to make decisions regarding their
personal lives. By abolishing gender-based discrimination, a UCC
can contribute to the overall progress of society, enabling women to
fully participate in the economic, social, and political spheres.
The 21st Law Commission’s report called for amending existing personal
laws to end discrimination against women. Its report in 2018 said: “This
Commission is of the view that it is discrimination and not difference which
lies at the root of inequality.”

Speaking to The Wire, R.P. Singh, national spokesperson for the BJP said: “It
(UCC) is only for gender justice. A woman should get equal rights across all
communities, caste, colour, creed. A Muslim couple cannot adopt a child
because they don’t have adoption rights.”

“Why should the girls’ marriage age be 15 and not 18 countrywide for all
communities? Or why shouldn’t inheritance law be equal for all women in the
country? Why should women suffer polygamy? These are concerns,” he said.

“It is not that a woman from a particular religion will get special rights or my
daughter will get special rights but my daughter-in-law will not if she comes
from a separate religion,” Singh said.

 In the 1996 manifesto, the UCC is mentioned under the heading “Nari
Shakti: Towards Empowerment”.
 In the 1998 manifesto, the UCC once again finds mention under the
section titled “Nari Shakti: Empowerment of Women”.
 In the BJP’s 2004 election manifesto, the UCC first finds mention under
the section “Our Basic Mission and Commitments” as “Consensus over
Uniform Civil Code”. It also promises a UCC under the section on Nari
Shakti to ensure gender equality and end the legal validity of “regressive
personal laws”.

“They recommended that the discrimination against women in all personal

laws should be taken up and amended. So, I think that is a better strategy
for gender justice than a UCC which is particularly controversial for the
minorities,” Agnes said.

Sarasu Esther Thomas, professor of law at National Law School of India

University, Bangalore and an expert in family law, told The Wire that there
can be gender justice without a UCC. “Practically you can have smaller laws
which are uniform which promote gender justice instead of trying to change
all the laws together, which is not a practical exercise at all.”
She said one good example of such implementation is the Domestic Violence
Act, which is applicable to all women regardless of their personal laws –
which, she said, “is a uniform civil code in that sense in a particular area”.

“These small incremental changes are what would be useful instead of having
something big which may not be deliverable,” Thomas said.

However, concerns remain around the Hindu Code Bill – which includes laws
relating to marriage, succession and inheritance that were codified and passed
in the 1950s – that it continues to discriminate on the basis of gender.

“Different laws that apply to Hindus are not all gender-just. If you look at the
Hindu Succession Act, for instance, if a man dies and his wife has
predeceased him and they don’t have children, then his property goes to his
family. But if a woman dies and her husband has died earlier and they don’t
have children, then her property does not go to her family but goes to her
husband’s relatives,” said Thomas.

According to Agnes, while the Goa Code receives much attention and praise,
it is by no means gender-just.

“It is not uniform at all and codified Hindu law does not apply to Goa. For
instance, in Goa, if a Hindu man’s wife doesn’t bear a child till 25 or a male
child till the age of 30, the husband can marry again. We are not
understanding the intricacies of each of these laws and pronouncing Goa as a
shining example.”

“The first non-negotiable aspect of any future code, whether the UCC or
common law or secular law, is upholding gender justice under all
circumstances,” said Soman.

“So that would also mean legally allowing same-sex marriages, allowing
entry to all women across all castes and faiths to all places of worship, rooting
out killings in the name of ‘love jihad’, and protection to women against
marital rape.”

there is already a range of problems that need to be addressed in the existing

laws urgently.

“This includes talking about succession beyond the gender binary. If you have
a transgender child, do you treat them as a son or a daughter? If a transgender
person dies, do you apply the succession laws of a Hindu man or a Hindu
woman? These problems are already there which need to be sorted out and
dealt with urgently.”
“In addition, some laws entirely exclude the LGBTQI community, illegitimate
children and women who are in non-marital relationships.

these laws are not just drawbacks in the context of secularism but in the context of gender
justice as well. Especially, women being the victim of religious customs which have been
supported and turned out to be matrimonial and property laws in the country are definitely
subject to scrutiny for the betterment of future generations. Thus, the last hope for eradicating
gender injustice in civil laws of the country is to bring Uniform Civil Code (UCC) into
existence and make our judiciary more elegant.

“Among Hindus, the rules for inheritance of a woman’s property are different froma man’s
property.Ifawoman dies intestate and has no husband or children her property will go to her
husband’s heirs andonlyifthey are not alive, the property will devolve upon her father’s heirs
and only lastly to her mother’sheirs,thismethod of succession was upheld by the Supreme
Court even though it recognized the injusticeofthisprovision.” Thus, the Hindu personal laws
in civil matters of marriage, divorce, adaptation, guardianship, inheritanceareprimarily
helpful in nature to safeguard the rights of Hindus according to their teachings
andcustomsbutkind of outdated with the present-day scenario. In today’s world men and
women were very muchequalandevery law governing rights should treat them equal.

In context of marriage, it is always the age that plays the factor where a girl who attains
18andboywhoattains age of 21 were legally bounded to get married under the eyes of laws.
But, for Muslims thescenariois bit different. “According to the personal law of Muslims, the
girl, no sooner she attains puberty or completes 15yearsofage, whichever is earlier, is
competent to get married.” The other aspect that needs our attention is witness at time of
marriage according to the Sunni’slawtheproposal for marriage and acceptance for the same
should be done in the presence of two malewitnessorone male witness and two female
witnesses. In the case of Abdullah v. Beepathu the court heldthat- “The marriage invalid as
there were two female witnesses only. That means as per the abovelawasingleman has an
equal status to two women. A woman is half to a man which is nothingbut
sheerdiscrimination.”

UCC is not welcomed by all across the political and religious spectrum. The debate has two
sides: If, ‘non implementation of the provision contained in Art.44 amounts to grave failure
of Indian Democracy” represents one side, the other side claims that “logical probability
appears to be that the code would cause dissatisfaction and disintegration then serve as
common umbrella to promote homogeneity and national solidarity.

While many argue that UCC is neither necessary nor desirable, there are several reasons why
UCC must be brought into effect. The prime reason behind this being gender justice. Personal
laws are invariably inherently patriarchal. In innumerable instances like Thota
Sesharathamma and Anr v. Thota Manikyamma , 23 Gita Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of
India, 24 amongst others, the Courts have had to step in and nullify the gender discriminatory
effect of personal laws. But this is not always especially in situations where the wordings are
blatant and unambiguous.

Further, even the Hindu Code is not equal amongst genders. While intestate succession of
male has been rectified with time, intestate succession to female continues to reek of
patriarchy. Thus, time is ripe to bring in gender just UCC is a must. The UCC’s importance
for gender equality cannot be denied and in a country like India, where women’s rights are
daily contested and often denied, this is of special significance. UCC will certainly help in
improving the condition of women in India. Indian society is undoubtedly extremely
patriarchal. By legitimising old religious rules to continue to govern our families, our post-
independent legal system is condemning all Indian women to subjugation and mistreatment.

Gender justice is the bedrock of the Constitution as can be discerned from the wordings of the
Preamble, fundamental rights like Art. 15(3), directive principles like Art. 39(a), and Art. 42,
to political reservations in Arts. 243D(3)(4) ,243T(3)(4). While every religion undoubtedly
enjoys the right to its own practices, traditions, and customs, a practice or custom that places
one below or beneath another, must go. And of all the inequalities, imbalances, and injustices
so caused, gender issues trump. One cannot continue to avoid solving gender injustices
because it coincides with other issues. It is absolutely no justification to say that gender
justice cannot be achieved because it is trapped under the weight of religion, or religious
freedom.

Granted that UCC by itself cannot end patriarchy. But it can absolutely prevent the legal
protection granted to it.

A personal law in India is based on religion, tradition, scripture and culture. Personal laws
contain some provisions which are unjust to women e.g. a Muslim husband can marry four
wives, he can divorce his wife unilaterally by the word ‘Talaq ’ thrice, her right to receive
adequate maintenance from the husband after divorce is not recognized. Many provisions of
Muslim personal law are discriminatory towards women and based on patriarchal ideology.
Personal laws relating to Hindu was also discriminatory, however, with the codification of
Hindu Personal law many reforms has taken place in order to provide equal right to Hindu
women. But it cannot be said that the Hindu Personal law has completely been reformed
because in different parts of India some customary law prevails. This customary law is based
on caste, belief and tradition and plays a vital role in regulating family affairs which are
derogatory towards right of women. The state should make an endeavor to reform personal
laws of the communities in India in order to ensure gender equality. Reform of the personal
law should be made in conformity of various Fundamental Rights of the Constitution which
seeks to promote gender equality and social justice.

Scholars like Archana Parashar, who eloquently endorse demands for a Uniform Civil Code,
put forth that a personal-laws based system is problematic from the equality point of view.
According to them, pluralistic religion-based laws are retrogressive and impose primitive
androcentric practices11 on women. They perceive law reforms like Hindu Marriage Act
1956, Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956, Dowry Prohibition Act 1961, The
Prohibition of Child Marriage 2006 and Muslim Women’s (Protection of Rights on Divorce)
Act 1986 which was passed under the historic Shah Bano case made Section 125 of the
Criminal Code12 applicable to Muslim women, as progressive steps towards gender equality.
The Portuguese Civil Procedure Code 193913, applicable to communities in Goa, is set forth
as an exemplar of the justiciable common law. It is often recognised as a progressive law that
allows equal division of income and property between husband, wife, and children regardless
of their gender. Since it is compulsory to have birth, marriage, and death registered under the
law, it believed that it hinders the practice of Triple Talaq (Portuguese Code of Civil
Procedure 1939). It is further argued that accepting legal pluralism as a fact questions the idea
of Article 44 of Directive Principles of State Policy that urges the state to introduce one.

Madhu Kishwar, a renowned India Academic, highlighted in her 1994 essay ‘Codified Hindu
Law: Myth and Reality’ that the claim that Hindu law was reformed is simply misleading, for
it was merely codified under immense pressure from the assembly members (Kishwar 1994).
She highlights that norms pertaining to the dissolution of the marriage are far more stringent
in the Hindu Marriage Act (1955) than those practised in other communities. For example, in
certain Rajasthani communities, women can freely enter and leave a marriage. Further, the
Hindu Marriage Act also made Saptapadi14 one of the few legitimate forms of marriage that
give men a chance to circumvent the prohibition on bigamy by following some other form of
customary practice of marriage. The contractual form of marriages, as practised in Kerala by
matrilineal communities and certain castes like Nairs, is delegitimised under this act
(Kishwar 1994). Thus, defeating the very purpose of protecting and empowering women
through these reforms. It is also argued that law reforms that disregard religion, such as The
Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006 and Dowry Prohibition Act 1961, have failed to iron
out the nefarious practices of dowry and child marriage. As the data on child marriage
published by UNICEF (2019) reveals, people who do not profess any religion still practice
child marriage.

The common code of Goa, touted as an example for UCC, is no less than an inequitable law
as it recognises situational bigamy for Hindus. Under specific circumstances as mentioned in
codes of usages and customs of gentile Hindus of Goa, if a Hindu woman fails to deliver a
baby by the age of 25 or if she fails to deliver a baby boy by age the of 30, the male has the
right to have a bigamous relationship (Noronha 2014). Further, the consensus that the state
must be held accountable for upholding the fundamental right to equality through the
legislation of a common code is not in compliance with the distinct identities that women
from different communities wish to pursue as a part of their cultural and religious freedom as
mentioned under Article 2515 and Article 26

Alok Prasanna Kumar, a senior resident fellow at the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, asserts
that Article 44 is itself unclear. Kumar (2016) points out that no other part of the constitution,
as such, mentions the UCC. According to the Sixth Schedule of the Indian Constitution, the
regional and district councils of tribal areas of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, and Mizoram
have exclusive law-making powers regarding family law. Likewise, Articles 371A18 and
371G19 exclude the states of Nagaland and Mizoram, respectively, from the applicability of
the parliamentary laws on the customary practices unless the legislature of the states gives
their approval . Hence, even if the parliament approves UCC, it would not apply equally to all
the Indian states, especially the north-eastern states, which questions the very idea of its
uniformity. Such criticisms are refuted because religion-based customs are purely primordial
social constructs that got naturalised over time. The recognition of religiouscultural rights and
their protection is problematic as the safeguarding of these differences in cultural practices is
implicated in the notion of self or, to say, the notion of protecting one’s identity, which has
come to be constituted as ‘male’ (Menon 1998: 250). It is further indicated that India, having
ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 and International
Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) 1979,
is bound to take steps towards ensuring gender equality through the enforcement of relevant
laws (Rattan 2004).

Various organisations, including the Law Commission of India, hold that efforts to bring
about gender justice should focus primarily on initiatives of reforms within the personal laws.
They anticipate that an all-encompassing code might harm the interests of women from
certain minority communities and hence, provide several recommendations for reformation.
1. Law Commission of India In its consultation paper on ‘Reforms of Family Law’, the Law
Commission of India (2018) asserted that an individual’s religious freedom must be protected
and should not be approached as a policy against the religious sentiments of any community
(Kidwai 2018). The Commission has explicitly mentioned that a UCC is neither necessary
nor desirable at this stage. It has proposed various legal amendments for family laws, which
include: Compulsory registration of marriages: Registration of marriages should be made
mandatory through the amendment of the Registration of Birth and Deaths Act. Commission
provided the same recommendation in its 270th report in 2017.

A uniform age for consent for marriage: The legal age for marriage should be alike for both
men and women. The Commission noted that the present law of 18 years for women to marry
and 21 for men contributes to the stereotype that women should be younger than their male
spouse. Bigamy upon conversion: It recommended that second marriage through the
conversion to other religion should be declared void. However, the child born out of that
wedlock must not be treated as illegitimate.

Community of property upon marriage and divorce: Commission noted that both partners
should equally be entitled to the property acquired after the marriage. However, the court
does not explicitly mention the absolute split of property after the divorce. Religion specific
reforms: Apart from the general reformations, it also pointed out certain religion-specific
changes should be made. For example, it recommended that necessary amendments should be
made to the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, which endorses that women should
be under the guardianship of a man her entire life, whether father or husband. It
recommended that Nikahnama (Muslim marriage contract) itself should make polygamy a
criminal offence. Further, through an appropriate amendment to the Muslim Marriage Act,
1939 adultery should be introduced as the ground for divorce. It also pointed that the
ostracisation of marriage outside one’s religion under the Parsi Personal Law should be
amended.

2. Nikahnama Group, Bombay The Nikahnama Group, working on Muslim Personal Law in
India, drafted a model Marriage Contract or Nikahnama that was accepted with modifications
by the Muslim Personal Law Board and Women’s Research and Action Group (Menon 1998:
254). Their suggestions included: • Outlawing the ‘Triple Talaq’. • Adequate maintenance
and inheritance rights that men must maintain their divorced wives even after the period of
iddat (waiting period) and that women should not have half and equal property rights.

3. Joint Women’s Programme (JWP) JWP is a non-profit organisation working towards the
cause of women’s rights. It formulated a draft law on reforms to Christian Personal Law. The
key areas it recommended for reform was the lack of uniformity among sects regarding the
registration of marriage, the divorce law that holds men to only prove adultery for divorce,
whereas women need to prove some other crime along with adultery and the lack of
maintenance rights for divorced women (Menon 1998: 255).

Several women’s organisations asserted that ‘Gender Justice’ has become a point of
contention between the Personal Laws and UCC, where Islam is demonised more than other
religions for perpetuating discriminatory practices. This presupposition is dangerous to
India’s multiculturalism and secularism. Women’s organisations like Majlis Bombay and All
India Democratic Women’s Association (AIDWA), the women’s wing of CPI (Marxist), hold
that the idea behind UCC has never been the protection of women and their rights but is to
target a religion in specific. Hence, instead of bringing out uniformity in law, there is a need
to address specific and immediate issues (Menon 1998: 258).

The notion of ‘Gender Justice’ in India involves deliberations about Personal Laws and the
Uniform Civil Code. Ever since its inception as a nation-state, the articulations around UCC
have loomed large to secure equal rights for women. However, UCC is often yielded as an
instrument for political gain while actual gender justice languishes. The main demands for
gender equality and equity are centred around the law. The judiciary, which is seen as an
avenue for social change and constitutes the third pillar of the Indian State, has drawn
arguments for UCC only as a catalyst for modernity and national integration rather than
gender equality. Here, the efficacy of law also comes under attack as even the
implementation of the existing laws is a debacle. Hence, if there ever is made a uniform code,
it would suffice only if its implementation is as good as the law itself. However, the
uniformity in law, short of securing women’s rights, would jeopardise the cultural and
communal harmony of the country that is deep-rooted in its spirit of diversity and
multiculturalism. As pointed out by various scholars and women activists, the push for
homogenisation is in contradiction with the very essence of Indian democracy. Therefore, at
this moment in time, a uniform civil code or an implicit demand favouring ‘communal rights’
isn’t the priority but rather substantive legislative efforts in favour of women’s rights.

the Working Group on Women’s Rights (WGWR) concluded in 1996: "All personal laws are
highly discriminatory against women since they are based on an interpretation of religion that
sanctions patriarchy and resists democratic and egalitarian relations between men and women
outside as well as within the family" (WGWR 1996: 1181). Feminist scholars criticise the
fact that personal laws are rarely amended in order to adapt to social change and mostly
remain "fossilised in the name of religious inviolability"

if UCC is implemented in a manner that is devoid of majoritarianism, then

yes, that would empower women. Most of our personal laws are
constructed with the view of women being the "weaker sex", which is why
in the early 20th century, women's organisations wanted UCC to be
implemented for gender equality. However, it's now become less about
gender equality and more about religious identity," explained Radhika
Roy, a Law Researcher at the Delhi High Court, told

"We don't want gender rights to be swallowed up in the politics of

Hindu-Muslim. What women suffer, women across the religions
suffer. The fact is that polygamy exists across communities. You have
to think about how to support women, all of them. Instead of
associating one community to one social evil – and make it look
regressive to that particular community. No one is saying we don't
want gender reforms, but it should not be a transparent pretext at the
time of election."