KCIYC 24

Background Guide

Committee: All India Political Parties Meet

Agenda: Deliberation Upon the Secular Fabric of India

with Special Emphasis on the Implementation of UCC
Letter from the Executive Board

Greetings Members!

It gives us immense pleasure to welcome you to this simulation of the All India
Political Party Meet (AIPPM) at KCIYC. We look forward to an enriching and
rewarding experience. Our agenda for the session is quite significant: “Deliberation
Upon the Secular Fabric of India with Special Emphasis on the Implementation
of the Uniform Civil Code (UCC)”.

This study guide is a stepping stone; we encourage our leaders to venture beyond
their boundaries, discovering new perspectives to bring forth in our discussions. Your
research, coupled with compelling arguments and a robust presentation of facts,
holds immense value. Here, it's essential to note that the crux lies in the substance of
your contributions—fluency, diction, or oratory skills, while good to have, take a
backseat to the content you bring to the table.

So, dive into your research, express your thoughts, and you're sure to make a lot of
sense. We're genuinely looking forward to learning a great deal from each one of you
and hope this committee brings you an equally rewarding experience.

If you have any queries or need clarification, please feel free to reach out. We'll do our
best to respond to your questions. The upcoming committee sessions promise
excitement and interest, fueled by the all-encompassing nature of the issue at hand.
As members of the Executive Board, we're not just here to guide; we genuinely hope
to gain insights from being part of this vibrant committee.

Don't hesitate to get in touch with us for any doubts you may have.

Warm regards,

Regards,
Aayaan Manhas
Moderator
aayaanmanhas.work@gmail.com
Valid Sources:

1. Government Reports (Each ministry publishes its own reports including the
External Affairs Ministry)
2. PTI, PIB
3. Government Websites
4. Government-run News channels i.e. RSTV, LSTV, DYD News
5. RTI
6. SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT JUDGEMENTS
7. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
8. ANY STATUTORY LAW OF INDIA
9. Questions and Answers of the Parliament
10. Government Reports
11. Parliamentary Standing Committee reports

Introduction to the Committee:

Introduction to AIPPM: The All India Political Parties Meet (AIPPM) is a non-technical
but powerful committee in the Model United Nations (MUN) setting. It is a meeting
between all the political parties of the nation, typically called before the session of
the Parliament or before the introduction of a bill. The purpose of the AIPPM
committee is to arrive at a consensus before the sessions begin. It is a
supplementary body to the Parliament without any legislative provisions. The AIPPM
committee in MUN aims to mimic this reality by reproducing the stages of policies
and jurisdiction, with delegates representing personalities from the divergent
groups of Indian political parties. Delegates are expected to be well-versed with their
political party's ideology, manifesto, and beliefs. This helps them grasp the
multi-layered processes that go behind policy-making and governance in India. The
AIPPM committee is unlike other conventional MUN committees, as it is
characterised by heated debates, cross talks, high levels of negotiations, and political
democracy. It echoes hopes of change and evolution. The AIPPM committee is a
great opportunity for delegates to learn about the Indian political system and to
develop their skills in negotiation, public speaking, and critical thinking. It is also a
chance to make new friends and to network with other MUNers from India and
around the world. Here are some of the skills that delegates can develop in the
AIPPM committee:
1. Negotiation skills: The AIPPM committee is all about negotiation. Delegates
will need to be able to build relationships, compromise, and reach consensus with
delegates from other political parties.
2. Public speaking skills: Delegates will have many opportunities to speak in front
of the committee. They will need to be able to articulate their points clearly and
persuasively.
3. Critical thinking skills: Delegates will need to be able to analyse complex issues
and develop creative solutions.
4. Teamwork skills: The AIPPM committee is a team effort. Delegates will need to
be able to work together effectively with their fellow delegates to achieve their goals.

Divide your debate and prepare according to these three parts:

1. General debate – wherein you communicate your stance on the issue, keeping
in mind not to reiterate the aforementioned points made by your fellow delegates.
2. Thematic debate - wherein you draw attention to specific topics. Furthermore,
this allows us to address each subtopic/theme/issue separately as in Discussion
Sessions.
3. Action on draft documents like working papers and/or draft resolutions that
cover the end goal of this committee.

Introduction to the Agenda:

India is proclaimed to be a "Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic Republic" in the

Preamble of the Constitution. Secularism: What Is It? Why is secularism necessary?
First of all, how did secularism come into being? Exist diverse definitions of
secularism? Which idea does India adhere to? To what extent is it accurate to
categorise India as a secular nation? Secularism is the view that religion should not
influence or be engaged in how a society, government, or educational system is run,
according to the Oxford Dictionary. It is the idea that religious organisations and
religious dignitaries should be kept apart from government institutions and those
tasked with representing the state. In his 1963 study India as a Secular State, Donald
E. Smith expanded the definition of a secular state to include "a state which
guarantees individual and corporate freedom of religion, is not constitutionally
connected to a particular religion nor does it seek either to promote or interfere with
religion." Three facets of secularism are shown in the definition provided by Smith as
interrelated relationships: - Individual and State - Individual and Religion - Religion
and State. This triangle can provide a thorough elaboration of these relations. These
three perspectives, first and foremost, show how people relate to religion. Positive
freedom of religion, which denotes "reasonable unrestrained liberty of believing &
practising one's religion," is contained in this relationship.
To put it another way, everyone should be allowed to practice any religion they
choose, to reject all others, and to act on their religious beliefs without interference
from the government. The Preamble of the Indian Constitution enshrines religious
freedom as a fundamental liberty value. The relationship between the state and the
individual is reflected in the second angular relation. There is "negative freedom of
religion" in it. The phrase "absence of restraints, discrimination, liabilities and
disabilities which a citizen might have been subject to" refers to "negative freedom
of religion." The interaction between the state and its religion gives rise to the third
angular relation. "Neutral freedom of religion" is contained in it. It suggests that the
state has no official religion and that it is apathetic about all religions.

India is a secular country and the principle of secularism falls in line with the
Preamble of the Constitution along with Article 25, Article 26, Article 27, Article 28,
Article 29 and Article 30 of the Indian Constitution. The Constitution of India grants
freedom of religion. The Indian Penal Code discusses the provisions for offences
relating to religion. In the case of Kutti Chanami Moothan v. Ranapattar, it was held
that ‘It is the main principle of good government that everyone should be offered to
proclaim his own religion and that no man should suffer to insult the religion of
another.’

Chapter XV (Of Offences Relating to Religion) of the Indian Penal Code contains five
Sections- Section 295, Section 295A, Section 296, Section 297 and Section 298. The
offences relating to religion can be broadly classified into three categories:

1. Defilement of places of worship or objects of great respect (Section 295 and 297).

2. Outraging or wounding the religious feelings of persons (Section 295A and 298).

3. Disturbing religious assemblies (Section 296).

Western Secularism:

Philosophers from antiquity like Epicurus and Marcus Aurelius, Enlightenment

thinkers such as John Locke, Voltaire, and Thomas Paine, and recent figures like
Bertrand Russell and Christopher Hitchens are key to secularism. Understanding
their political philosophy is crucial to grasping secularism. The term "secularism"
comes from the Latin "saeculum," meaning "century" or "the spirit of an age."

Epicurus introduced consequentialism, an early form of secular ethics advocating

selflessness. He believed living in a community for the common good was ideal.
Marcus Aurelius promoted a tolerant, pluralistic society for all religions, excluding
those influencing politics. Aristotle also supported secularism as progress toward
civilization.

Locke supported toleration, synonymous with secularism, during the Catholic

takeover of Great Britain. Thomas Paine opposed religion and communicated his
ideas in accessible language, emphasising republicanism, liberty, democracy, and
human rights. Critics, however, noted he did not distinguish between atheism and
secularism. Secularism means the state treats all religions equally or remains
separate from them. In the mid-19th century, George Holyoake coined "secularism"
to unite atheists and theists. He promoted a secularism tolerant of religion,
emphasising diversity and coexistence. Holyoake believed enlightenment would
bring rational religious knowledge without past divisions. In the 1850s, Bradlaugh, a
contemporary of Holyoake, advocated for a secularism that rejected religion and
embraced science.

Indian Secularism:

One may wonder if there is an Indian definition of secularism and, if so, how it differs
from the definition found in the West. Rajiv Bhargava, a political thinker and
academic, makes an affirmative case. He elaborates on the distinctions between
Indian and Western conceptions of secularism, stating that Indian secularism
advocated a "principled distance" rather than the construction of a rigid wall
separating religion and state. Furthermore, it was never meant to be a brutal
privatisation of religion; rather, it balanced the claims of both individuals and
religious communities.

When we compare the opinions of Western scholars with those of Gandhi and
Nehru, we discover that Gandhi's concept of secularism, known as sarva dharma
sambhava, bears a striking resemblance to Homer's. Similar to this, Brasdlaugh's
definition of secularism resonates with Nehruvian, the secularist view that religion
and the state should be kept apart. Because of these parallels, Nandy observed in
The Politics of Secularism and the Recovery of Religious Tolerance that although the
majority of non-modern Indians unintentionally chose the accommodative and
pluralist meaning, westernised Indians have consciously chosen to remove religion
from public life. The state may still interfere in matters of religion as long as it stays
within the parameters set forth by the Constitution, according to Rajeev Bhargava's
interpretation of the "principled distance" between the state and religion.

Secularism and Indian Constitution:

During the discussions in the Constituent Assembly, which drafted the Indian
Constitution, secularism was a hot topic. Prof. KT Shah suggested that "Secular,
Federal, and Socialist" be included in Article 1, but Dr. Ambedkar disagreed, claiming
that the word "secular" could compromise democracy. He thought India's secularism
was inherent and would only get stronger. Some contend that rather than rejecting
secularism, the Assembly accepted it as a given and an essential component of
fundamental rights. In 1976, the 42nd Amendment Act inserted the term "secular" to
the Preamble.

India's secular orientation is reflected in a number of its Constitutional clauses. While

Article 15 forbids discrimination based on religion, Article 14 guarantees equality
before the law. Regardless of faith, equal job opportunities are guaranteed by Article
16. Freedom of conscience and religion is guaranteed by Article 25. In addition, the
Constitution guarantees that the state will not discriminate against people based on
their religion. The freedom to govern religion matters is guaranteed by Article 26,
while mandatory taxes for religious benefits are forbidden by Article 27. Religious
instruction is prohibited in state-funded educational institutions by Article 28.
Minority populations are guaranteed cultural preservation under Article 29, and they
are permitted to create and oversee educational institutions without facing funding
discrimination from the state under Article 30.

Parliament uses legislation, like personal laws, to define collective rights. It is difficult
to acknowledge different religious practices and make institutional
accommodations, which could exclude smaller religious systems. The Constitution
permits financial support to religious educational institutions but forbids the
establishment of a state religion and equitable treatment of all religions. For the sake
of cultural advancement and harmonious coexistence, the state may sometimes
interfere with religious practices.

Article 44 requires the state to enact a unified civil code, whereas Article 25 preserves
the freedom of religion. The directive's guiding principles also recommend against
killing cows. The 7th Schedule permits the federal and state governments to enact
laws by placing trusts, charities, and religious institutions on the Concurrent List. In
conflicts, central laws take precedence. Constitutional modifications served to
further acknowledge the connection between religion and state, with the addition of
the word "secular" to the Preamble in 1975.

Secularism: India v. West:

Secularism in the West refers to three concepts: the separation of church and state,
religious freedom, and equal citizenship for all citizens. In Western constitutions, this
division is emphasised; political power is asserted in legal affairs, but people are free
to follow their own religions and let those religions influence their spirituality. The
law treats everyone equally, regardless of religion.

On the other hand, secularism in India refers to treating all religions equally rather
than separating religion and state. In India, religion still has a say in personal law;
Hindus and Christians are subject to various laws. An official state religion is
forbidden in the United States by the "establishment clause" of the First
Amendment. The Supreme Court's "Lemon Test" in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)
defined secular activities as those that pursue a secular goal, do not promote or
impede religion, and stay away from undue government involvement with religion.
Nonetheless, noting past custom, the Supreme Court permitted state-funded
legislative prayers in Marsh v. Chambers (1983). On the other hand, the Court decided
in McCreary County v. ACLU (2005) that it was unconstitutional to display the Ten
Commandments in a courtroom.

Additionally, Indian secularism is not the same as the French idea of laïcité, which
calls for the exclusion of religion from politics and educational institutions. Religious
laws are recognized by the Indian government, which also supports religious schools.
This system provides religious organisations with incentives to uphold schools,
deliver religious instruction, and obtain government support. Furthermore, in
striking contrast to Western secularism, the Indian government maintains, oversees,
and finances ancient Hindu temples, Buddhist monasteries, and certain Christian
establishments.

Secularism and Indian Judiciary:

The idea of secularism has occasionally been addressed by the Indian Supreme
Court through a number of rulings. In the case of Sardar Taheruddin Syedna Saheb v.
State of Bombay, the Supreme Court first discussed its opinions on the secular
nature of the Constitution. justice Ayyangar explained that Articles 25 and 26
embodied the principle of religious toleration, which has been a defining
characteristic of Indian civilization since the beginning of time. It is best to regard the
times and situations when this functionality was missing as only transient
aberrations. Additionally, they highlight the secular character of Indian democracy,
which secularism's founding fathers believed to be the foundation of the
Constitution. Another name for this case is The Ex-Communication case.

Similar to this, the court believes that secularism is a component of the

Constitution's Basic Structure in Kesavananda Bharti v. The State of Kerala. justice
Sikri listed the "Secular Character of the Constitution '' as one of the fundamental
characteristics of the document. According to Grover and justice. Shelat, one of the
key components of the fundamental framework listed in the Constitution is the
"secular and federal character of the document. "Since "liberty of thought,
expression, belief, faith, and worship" is a fundamental component of the Indian
Constitution, Jaganmohan Reddy. made it very clear that it could not be altered
under any circumstances.

The Court said unequivocally in Kesavananda that secularism is a fundamental

component of the Constitution, but in Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society v. The
State of Gujarat, it made it clear that it had mixed feelings on the matter. According
to justice. Matthew and Chandrachud, the Constitution only impliedly called for a
secular state. "The Constitution has not erected a rigid wall of separation between
the Church and the State," they said, adding a new dimension to the idea within the
framework of the Constitution. India can only be considered a secular state under
certain conditions.

The Constitution has some clauses that make it difficult to categorise our state as
secular. According to our Constitution, secularism simply refers to an attitude that is
alive and animate that eventually becomes a living attitude. This viewpoint seemed
to imply a conflict between the idea of secularism as judicially constituted and the
ideas that are clear in the Constitution. The ruling also established a contemporary
definition of secularism in India.

In Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v. Brijmohan Ram Das Mehra, the Supreme Court
proceeded to provide a philosophical and utilitarian definition of secularism. The
Court imposed obligations on the State to ensure that its laws do not impose
disabilities on the basis of a person's practice or professing of a particular religion, as
well as to be neutral or impartial in providing benefits to individuals of all castes and
creeds. Nonetheless, it appears that some Supreme Court justices applied similar
reasoning in the Indra Sawhney case. This is demonstrated by Kuldip Singh's opinion.
He claims that a caste-free, harmonious society is what secularism envisions.
Furthermore, "caste poses a serious threat to secularism and a consequence to the
integrity of the country" . This perspective appears to go beyond simple religious
distinction in the definition of secularism. This seems to suggest that the Court is still
unsure about the precise meaning of the phrase.

Secularism is a fundamental component of the system, the Court unequivocally

stated in the seminal ruling in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India. But coming up with a
definition proved to be difficult. Secularism is predicated on the "principles of
accommodation and tolerance," according to Ahmadi, justice. Stated differently, an
endorsement of a "soft secularism".

He tended to concur with the Court's expanded interpretation in the Indra Sawhney
case. In the Bommai case, the court decided that religion and temporal activities are
incompatible. Only to the extent that it permits the pursuit of a spiritual life apart
from the secular life is religion free and tolerant. The latter is under the purview of
state affairs. "The encroachment of religion into secular activities is strictly
prohibited," the Court added. In a separate ruling, Ramaswamy, justice stated that it
is the responsibility of the State to uphold secularism by legislation or executive
order.

He clarified that policies or ideologies developed by political parties on the basis of

religion amounted to acknowledging religion as a component of political
government, which is specifically forbidden by the Constitution. He contends that if a
political party violates secular norms such as casteism or religious intolerance, the
court has an obligation to correct it. His ruling presents the court's inflexible position
and restates the belief that secularism encompasses anti-casteism. In general,
Ramaswamy, justice. was concurred with by Jeevan Reddy and Agrawal.

The Judges even went so far as to state that the First Amendment of the United
States Constitution and the Indian Constitution have a similar understanding of
secularism.

They further stated that they believed the State had the authority to enact laws
pertaining to religion, including personal legislation under Article 44 and the secular
operations of mosques, temples, and other places of worship. They continued by
saying that a political party is acting unconstitutionally even if it subtly supports a
religious goal.
You may refer to the following Cases:

● M. Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors

● Guru Hanuman Mandir & Anr v. Delhi Development Authority & Anr
● Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M.
● Mohammed Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum
● Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay

Defilement of Places of Worship or Objects of Great Respect

According to Section 295 of the IPC (Section, “any person who destroys, damages or
defiles any worship place, or any object declared as holy object by any class of
persons with the intention of insulting the religious sentiments of any other class or
with the knowledge that any of the class is likely to consider such destruction or
defamation as an insult to their religion, shall be guilty and punishable with
imprisonment of mentioned term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or
with both.” In simple words, if any act is done by a person which results in
defamation and destruction of any worship place or object (which is declared as
sacred by any religion) with a sole intention of insulting their religion, then that
person shall be held liable under the Section 295 and shall be punishable with
imprisonment, or with fine, or both. Section 295 enforces people to respect the
religious beliefs of persons of any religion. According to Section 297 of the IPC, “If a
person (with an intention of destroying the religious feelings of any person, or hurt
the religious feelings of any person, or with the knowledge that the feelings of any
person are probably to be hurt or destroyed, or with the knowledge that the religion
of any person is probably to be insulted) commits any trespass in any worship place
or place of sculpture, or any place set aside from the performance of funeral rites or
as a repository for the remains of the dead, or offers any shame to any human body,
or causes disturbance to any persons assembled for the performance of funeral
ceremonies, then that person shall be held liable under the IPC and he shall be
punished with imprisonment of term, mentioned in description which may extend
to one year, or with fine, or with both.” In simple words, Section 297 deals with
punishment to people (with the intention to hurt the religious feelings of another)
who commit a trespass in any worship place, or in sepulture, or burial, or place set
apart for burial rites.

Hindutva and Secularism:

Contrasting secularism in India, Hindu nationalist ideology, first codified by V. D.
Savarkar in the 1920s in Hindutva: Who Is a Hindu?, defines India as a Hindu nation
and aims to transform it into a Hindu rashtra (nation-state). Hindu nationalists view
India as a Hindu nation-state because Hindus make up about 80% of the population
and consider themselves the true sons of the soil, seeing Muslims and Christians as
products of foreign invasions.

The RSS, a Hindu nationalist organisation, was formed in 1925 in reaction to the
Khilafat Movement, a pan-Islamist mobilisation of Indian Muslims. The Hindu
Mahasabha, initially the right wing of the Congress Party, became a separate party
under Savarkar in 1937, engaging in electoral politics. The RSS, however, focused on
building a network of local branches and creating front organisations like a student
union and a labour union. In 1951, the RSS established the Bharatiya Jana Sangh
(BJS) to participate in electoral politics, forming the Sangh Parivar (the family of the
Sangh), a group of pro-Hindu cultural nationalist organisations.

Hindu nationalists accused the Congress Party of playing vote bank politics with
Muslims while the RSS did the same with Hindu voters. The RSS aimed to unite
Hindus to influence politicians to respect Hindu sentiments. The Ayodhya
movement, launched in the 1980s, mobilised Hindus around the symbol of Lord
Ram, leading to the demand to rebuild a temple at Ram's supposed birthplace,
replacing the Babri Masjid mosque. This campaign polarised voters along religious
lines, helping the BJP win the 1991 state elections in Uttar Pradesh, where activists
demolished the Babri Masjid in 1992 to make way for a Ram temple.

The demolition reflected the Sangh Parivar's anti-secular agenda. The RSS's goal of a
Hindu rashtra involves eradicating foreign influences, exemplified by renaming cities
with Islamic names and targeting Islam and its proponents. Actions have included
converting Muslims to Hinduism and preventing interreligious marriages.

After the Ayodhya movement, the BJP rose to power in 1998 and again in 1999 as
part of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA). To maintain the coalition, the BJP
put three key issues on hold: building a temple in Ayodhya, creating a uniform civil
code, and abolishing Jammu and Kashmir's autonomous status. However, the BJP's
anti-Muslim stance, highlighted by the 2002 Gujarat riots, led to the party's defeat in
the 2004 general elections. The Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA)
returned to a secular approach, as shown by the Sachar Committee's report on the
poor socioeconomic conditions of Muslims.
In 2014, the BJP won an absolute majority in the Lok Sabha. Although the party did
not immediately revive its controversial issues, it marginalised Muslims through
unofficial channels. Hindu vigilante groups, with state backing, targeted minorities,
practising cultural policing. This vigilantism was prevalent in BJP-ruled states like
Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh, where Yogi Adityanath became Chief minister in 2017.
These groups targeted Muslims accused of love jihad, led ghar wapsi (homecoming)
campaigns to convert Muslims and Christians to Hinduism, and formed the Gau
Raksha Dal to protect cows, often violently intercepting Muslim cattle transporters.
The rise of Hindu vigilantism, supported by the BJP, shows India's shift towards a de
facto Hindu rashtra. The Sangh Parivar's grassroots influence grows with the BJP's
tacit support, legitimising majoritarian rule and illegal actions by Hindutva forces.

Political Scenario:

Since the 2014 election, rising Hindu nationalism has put the Congress Party and
secularism on the defensive. Many scholars now consider the BJP the new hegemon
of Indian politics, with Hindu nationalism gaining traction at the expense of
secularism. This trend suggests that Hindu nationalism is increasingly seen as the
only viable stance for a nationwide political party aiming for electoral success. The
Congress Party’s actions support this interpretation, as it has sometimes
downplayed its secular roots and embraced pro-Hindu sentiments. Recently, the
Congress Party has engaged in what some call “soft Hindutva,” emulating the
religiosity typically associated with the BJP. During recent state election campaigns,
Rahul Gandhi visited numerous temples and emphasised his Hindu credentials in
response to BJP attacks on his heritage.

Beyond optics, Congress has begun adopting some of the BJP’s campaign themes.
For instance, the party manifesto in Madhya Pradesh promised to build gaushalas
(cow shelters), promote the use of gaumutra (cow urine) and cow dung, and develop
the Ram Van Gaman Path. Rajendra Singh, a Congress leader, admitted this platform
was adopted in response to BJP pressures, aiming to shed the “Muslim party” tag.

Congress’s state manifestos have also shifted. Five years ago, the party focused on
promises for the minority community, mainly Muslims. Recently, it has promised
pro-Hindu measures instead. This pro-Hindu trend is also evident in its ticket
distribution strategy. In two-party states, Congress nominates fewer Muslim
candidates, reasoning that Muslims have no choice but to vote for Congress to
defeat the BJP. The underrepresentation of Muslims in Congress needs context.
Historically, Congress has nominated few Muslim candidates due to the influence of
Hindu traditionalists within the party, yet it maintained a secular image. The real test
of Congress’s commitment to secularism lies in its policies. To date, the party has not
decisively implemented the Sachar Committee report, partly due to Sangh Parivar
pressure. The well-being of Muslim citizens is another benchmark. In many
BJP-ruled states, minorities feel threatened due to violence against Muslims accused
of mistreating cows and harassment of Christian clergy. Whether Congress-run
states provide security to minorities and restore trust in state institutions will
measure the party’s secular credentials. One example of Congress succumbing to
majoritarian pressures is Madhya Pradesh. After winning the 2018 state elections,
Congress responded to BJP accusations by expanding "Vande Mataram" events and
arresting Muslims accused of cow slaughter under pressure from Hindu nationalists.
However, not all Congress figures agree. Sachin Pilot in Rajasthan argued for
prioritising human dignity over the cow issue. The Congress Party's stance on
secularism varies by state. The contrast between the secular attitude of its top
leadership and the Hindu traditionalism of local bosses has been evident since the
1950s. This was illustrated by divergent views within Congress on the Sabarimala
controversy, with Rahul Gandhi initially supporting equality but later expressing
ambivalence. The Congress Party’s commitment to secularism will depend on the
popularity of Hindu nationalism and the leadership's ability to maintain a coherent
line. Regional parties, representing about half of Indian voters, follow varying
trajectories. Some oscillate between secular and non-secular practices, while others
defend minority rights, though their records are not always clear-cut.

Communalism in India:

One must understand that the differences between Hindus and Muslims were
actually not the reason for communalism because these differences were there
during the mediaeval times itself. Hindus and Muslims were living with their own
distinct identities, but they had a common, unifying culture. They learnt each other’s
traditions, and customs, and evolved a common language, ‘Urdu’. Even in the fields
of music, painting, architecture, administration, dress, and food, they learnt a lot from
each other. The difference of faith alone wasn’t a reason for conflict. The differences
arose only during the colonial period (mainly after the events of the 1857 rebellion),
when many developments were seen and they were responsible for the rise and
growth of communalism in modern India.
1. 1946 Calcutta Riots:

Known as 'Great Calcutta Killings', is one of the bloodiest communal riots to have
ever happened in India. The minorities residing in India believed that they would be
asked to leave the country by Hindus after the end of British rule. As a result, they
started the violence against Hindus which turned into a brutal massacre. The deadly
killings continued till four days in the capital of West Bengal and around 10,000
people lost their lives.

2. The 1969 Gujarat Riots:

The 1969 Gujarat riots are known to be one of the most deadly Hindu-Muslim riots to
have ever occurred in India. It was the evening of 18th September 1969, when the
violence started. A minor incident relating to some cattle damaging the carts of
shoppers, belonging to a particular community, led to a large-scale violence, arson
and stoning. The riots continued until 24 September 1969 and around 514 people lost
their lives in the riots and 6,123 houses and shops were damaged.

3. 1970 Bhiwandi Riots:

The 1970 Bhiwandi riots are considered to be one of the brutal kinds of the rift to
have ever occurred in the state of Maharashtra till the 1992 Babri Masjid riots. The
cause of the massacre was a procession held to celebrate the birth anniversary of the
legendary Maratha ruler, Shivaji. During the procession, Hindu and Muslim
communities got into violent clashes which resulted in the death of 250 people

4. 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots:

After former Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was assassinated by two of her Sikh
bodyguards on 31 October 1984 in response to her actions authorising the military
operation, riots triggered in many parts of Delhi and other parts of India. The Sikh
community was targeted in these riots and around 2800 people were killed,
including 2,100 in Delhi. Human rights organisations and newspapers across India
believe the massacre was organised.

5. 1986 Kashmir Riots:

Ever since independence, Kashmir has been plagued by consistent operations

launched by the insurgents. In 1986, communal riots broke out in the state against
the Kashmiri Hindus. These riots occurred when the Kashmiri Muslims forced
Kashmiri Pandits to evacuate the Kashmir valley as a result of terrorism.
Approximately 1000 people lost their lives and more than 1000 people became
homeless.
6. 1989 Bhagalpur Riots

During the Ramshila processions, which were supposed to proceed from Gaushala
area and to move on to Ayodhya, people started shouting provocative slogans. The
communal violence started when a series of rumours spread that around 200
students were killed by a particular community, which was followed by a series of
other baseless rumours. The riots continued for two days in Bhagalpur city and 250
villages around it. It was reported that 1,070 people were killed and 524 injured.

7. 1992 Mumbai Riots

In December 1992 and January 1993, the whole of Mumbai faces brutal riots that
killed around 1000 people. The cause of the riots was the escalations of hostilities
after a large-scale protest by Muslims in reaction to the 1992 Babri Masjid Demolition
by Hindu Karsevaks in Ayodhya. 1993 Bombay serial bomb blasts were the result of
these riots.

8. 2002 Gujarat Riots

On February 27, 2002, a coach of Sabarmati Express caught fire and around 58
Karsevaks of Vishwa Hindu Parishad died. VHP called for a statewide band which
further resulted in arson and killings of the Muslim community. The riots lasted for
three days before the Army had to be called in. Around 1,000 people were killed in
the riots, leaving 2,500 people injured and 220 people missing.

9. 2006 Aligarh Riots

On the occasion of Ram Navami on 5th April 2006, a violent incident took place in
Aligarh due to an alleged misunderstanding between Hindus and Muslims. Around
six people lost their lives due to this communal rift and several others were injured.
Soon after the incident, a curfew was imposed in the city, helping the region become
normal once again

10. 2013 Muzaffarnagar Riots

The 2013 Muzaffarnagar riots are among the major blotches on the history of Uttar
Pradesh. These riots occurred due to the rivalry between the Hindu and Muslim
communities, however, the exact cause of these riots is not known. The riots led to
the death of 423 Muslims and 20 Hindus and disruption in the lives of more than
50,000 people of the district. A Certain amount of sexual violence like gang rape was
also reported during these riots.
11. Delhi Riots 2020:

The Delhi riots of February 2020, sparked by clashes over the Citizenship
Amendment Act, led to over 50 deaths and widespread destruction. The violence
exposed deep communal tensions, with criticism directed at the police for delayed
response and alleged complicity, raising concerns about political and police
accountability.

Factors Responsible for Communal Violence:

1. Divisive Politics – Communalism is often defined as a political doctrine that

uses religious and cultural differences to achieve political gains.
2. Economic Causes – Uneven development, class divisions, poverty, and
unemployment increase insecurity among common people, making them
vulnerable to political manipulation.
3. History of Communal Riots – The likelihood of communal riots recurring in a
town where they have previously occurred is higher than in a town where they have
never happened.
4. Politics of Appeasement – Political parties, driven by vested interests and
political considerations, make decisions that promote communal violence.
5. Isolation and Economic Backwardness of the Muslim Community – The failure
to adopt scientific and technological education has led to insufficient representation
in public service, industry, and trade, causing a feeling of relative deprivation among
Muslims. The resurgence of Hindu-Muslim economic competition, especially among
the lower and middle classes, has fueled communal ideology.
6. Administrative Failure – Weak law and order contribute to communal violence.
7. Psychological Factors – The lack of interpersonal trust and mutual
understanding between communities often results in perceptions of threat,
harassment, fear, and danger, leading to conflict and anger.
8. Role of Media – The media is often accused of sensationalism and spreading
rumours as "news," which can exacerbate tensions and riots between rival religious
groups. Social media has also emerged as a powerful medium for spreading
messages related to communal tension or riots in any part of the country.
Analysing Recent Law and Policy Developments:

Anti-Conversion Laws:

India’s Freedom of Religion Acts or “anti-conversion” laws are state-level statutes that
have been enacted to regulate religious conversions. Post-independence
governments have upheld anti-conversion laws that originated during the period of
British colonial rule, and only apply to conversion from the “original religion,” which is
assumed to be Hindu. A long-standing antipathy to Christian conversions, in
particular, is reflected in laws and public policy. The laws are in force in various states
across India. While there are some variations between the state laws, they are very
similar in their content and structure. All of the laws seek to prevent any person from
converting or attempting to convert, either directly or otherwise, any person through
“forcible” or “fraudulent” means, or by “allurement” or “inducement.” However, the
anti-conversion laws in Rajasthan and Arunachal Pradesh appear to exclude
reconversions to “native” or “original'' faiths from their prohibitions. Penalties for
breaching the laws can range from monetary fines to imprisonment, with
punishments ranging from one to three years of imprisonment and fines from 5,000
to 50,000 Indian rupees. Despite criticism of India’s anti-conversion laws, some
human rights bodies have acknowledged that these laws have resulted in few
arrests and no convictions. However, some observers note that these laws create a
hostile, and on occasion violent, environment for religious minority communities
because they do not require any evidence to support accusations of wrongdoing. All
the state laws are similar in scope. They do not directly ban conversion but make the
conversion by “force, allurement, inducement or fraud” illegal. Of course, these terms
are not defined, giving the state a wide berth to harass the powerless. For instance,
in Jharkhand’s new law – the Religious Freedom Bill, 2017 – the word “force” also
includes the “threat of divine displeasure”. So, what criteria do we evolve to situate
the threat of divine displeasure in this context? How is the state supposed to
prosecute on the basis of this? The term “allurement” is also not defined. So, is
education or healthcare “allurement”? And what is “fraud”? Jharkhand’s Act defines
it as “misrepresentation”. But then, considering the nature of religion itself, what
does it even mean to indulge in misrepresentation? Despite the fact that our
Constitution confers a right to “propagate” religion, statutes enacted in several
states, which make it difficult for preachers to proselytise and convert Hindus to
religions like Christianity, have been upheld on the grounds that propagating
religion does not include conversion. What would such a move mean for the secular
fabric of the country? While the courts have upheld the validity of the state-wide
anti-conversion laws, however, how do we look at these from the lens of the principle
of secularism, especially in light of non-discrimination and freedom to profess
religion? How do we adequately differentiate between legally professing one’s
religion and forcibly converting another? Should there be a need to do that at all?
How do we judge the secular character of the law, in light of harassment by the state
in one’s personal choices in light of the very letter and spirit of the law, or both?

Citizenship Amendment Act:

In its 2014 parliamentary election manifesto, the BJP stated that Hindus who were
fleeing persecution from other countries would find a home in India. In keeping with
this promise, the Citizenship (Amendment) Act seeks to bring religious
considerations to bear on the acquisition of Indian citizenship. Whereas the
Citizenship Act of 1955 denies citizenship rights to all “illegal” immigrants, the
proposed bill excludes “minority religious individuals”—specifically Hindus, Sikhs,
Jains, Parsis, Buddhists and Christians from “Muslim-dominated countries”
specifically Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan from the category of “illegal
immigrant.” The Act further reduces the requirement for immigrants to be
neutralised, from 11 to just 6 years of residence in India. The Act hence would exclude
such persecuted Muslim minorities as the Rohingyas from Myanmar, Ahmadiyyas
from Pakistan, and Uighurs from China. Critics have claimed that through this the
Modi government has sought to align Indian nationalism with Hindu nationalism.
The central concern within this is the issue of granting citizenship on the basis of
religion. Civil Society and the opposition have raised concerns that not only is such a
measure exclusive and unprecedented, but it also goes against Article 14 of the
Constitution and hence violates the secular ethos of India. Moreover, the
North-eastern states have opposed it on the grounds that it 12 violated the Assam
Accord of 1985. Does such a measure violate the secular fabric of India? Is it a
violation of Article 14? How do we approach the question of citizenship with respect
to religion and the principle of secularism? Are the criteria of granting citizenship on
the basis of religious minorities and not persecuted individuals in line with the tenets
of secularism?
Question of funding religious practices and endowments: NDA’s 2018
decision to cancel Haj Subsidy:

The government in January 2018 abolished the subsidy being given to Haj pilgrims
every year. The policy to support Muslims in making the pilgrimage to Mecca in
Saudi Arabia can be traced back to 1932, when the British enacted the Port Haj
Committees Act. In the ensuing decades, the Act has undergone numerous
changes. And in recent years it has called for significant criticism from various
parties. In 2012, a Supreme Court order directed the Haj subsidy to be gradually
phased out in the coming ten years. In 2017, a Central Haj Committee meeting
decided to do away with the subsidy by the following year. This policy move by the
Government raises various pertinent questions with respect to the relationship
between the state and religion. While this has been termed anti-muslim by some
sections of society, many others have contended that the State should do away with
subsidising or spending on religious events and activities altogether. The Haj is not
the only religious pilgrimage being funded by the State. A number of other religious
tours are supported by the government. For instance, the state and central
governments spend considerable amounts on the pilgrim facilities at the four
Kumbh Melas in Haridwar, Ujjain, Nashik and Allahabad. The Kailash Mansarovar
yatra from North India to the mountains of Tibet is yet another pilgrimage which is
organised by the government with arrangements being made for security and
health facilities. There are various other such cases wherein the state spends on or
funds religious matters. While one can debate whether this move is anti-muslim or
not and thus discriminatory, however, the central question that this raise is of
whether thestate should at all fund or spend on religious matters. Is this in line with
the ethics of secularism? Does the come under the conception of the state
maintaining a principled distance with religion or not? How, through this act of the
state do we look at the practice of secularism in India and the notion of principled
distance?

De-operationalisation of Article 370: Question of maintenance of the

Secular fabric of India:

On 5th August 2019, the Central Government led by the BJP chose to
de-operationalise Article 370 of the Constitution along with effective abrogation of
Article 35A – provisions granting special status to the (former) State of Jammu and
Kashmir. Along with this, a bill has been passed to bifurcate the state into the Union
Territory of Jammu and Kashmir (with legislature) and the Union Territory of Ladakh
(without legislature). The move by the centre has met with a lot of fanfare as well as
criticism. While some have been hailing it as an unprecedented move, others have
questioned the legality and morality of it. The move has been and can be debated
from different angles – legal, political, social and moral. What we are looking at is to
see if such a move fits within the secular ethos of India. This is particularly important
because Jammu and Kashmir is the only Muslim-majority state, which has been
marred in conflict and the politics and nature of the state have always been a central
point of debate within the larger debate of secularism in India. How do we place the
debate on secular ethics here? There is no one way of going about this. Critics of the
decision to de-operationalise Article 370 have held that the secure existence (by
extending special provisions like 370) of the Muslim majority J&K in India validated
the secular character of the country, which has been lost now with the decision to
impose such a move, especially without consulting the populace or the leaders of
the state. People on the other side of the debate claim that the existence of Article
370 actually represented a pseudo-secularism of the Indian state as it extended
undue benefits and special provisions to the state of J&K. Thus, for them,
de-operationalising and bringing J&K to the mainstream does not hamper the
secular fabric of the country, but rather it gives legitimacy to it. Most importantly, the
biggest point of contention has been raised by critics who claim that such a move
will result in the change of demographic of the state and, thus, is regarded as a plot
to achieve the goal of legitimising Hindu majoritarianism and nationalism. How do
we look at the move to de-operationalise Article 370 from the lens of secularism? Do
arguments claiming development and mainstreaming have a link with the secular
fabric of India? Where do we place the idea of one-ness and mainstreaming within
the larger debate concerning the secular fabric of India? Is differentiated citizenships
in line with the principles of secularism or Not?

Conclusion:
Indian secularism is not simply the invention of India’s post-1947 political leaders; the
concept has a longer, distinguished place in the history of Indian civilization. For
millennia, some rulers have promoted the coexistence of India’s religious
communities. Emperor Ashoka did so, in spite of his zealous adherence to Buddhism,
and the Mughal Emperor Akbar went even further by initiating a syncretic creed—a
tradition that culminated in Gandhism. In fact, Indian secularism is the by-product of
a whole civilization, as a senior literary figure, Nayantara Sahgal, remarked recently:
“We are unique in the world that we are enriched by so many cultures, religions. Now
they want to squash us into one culture. So it is a dangerous time. We do not want to
lose our richness. We do not want to lose anything . . . all that Islam has brought us,
what Christianity has brought us, what Sikhism has brought us. Why should we lose
all this? We are not all Hindus but we are all Hindustani.”
Hindu nationalism is depriving India of one of its main assets, at a time when
countries around the world are struggling to cope with religious diversity. By
countering this worldview and the secular political culture that has emerged from it,
Hindu nationalism is depriving India of one of its main assets, at a time when
countries around the world are struggling to cope with religious diversity. For
instance, French Prime Minister Édouard Philippe has indicated that his country may
have to reform its famous 1905 law codifying laïcité (the country’s strict conception of
secularism, which forbids government involvement in religious affairs) to make room
for religion in the public space again, after the recent growth in the number of
French citizens who practise Islam.

Despite the apparent ascendance of Hindu nationalism under the BJP, however, it
may be premature to conclude that this brand of nationalism has established
undisputed hegemony over Indian politics and society. In fact, secularism may
indirectly benefit from the reactivation of caste identities, which often can
undermine religious identities. In the run-up to India’s 2019 general election, even
the BJP has tried to exploit caste identities by introducing new positive
discrimination (affirmative action) policies. For citizens from less privileged economic
backgrounds who belong to the general category (that is, primarily the upper castes
or those untouched by existing state quotas), Modi announced in January 2019 a 10
percent quota for educational institutions and civil service posts. In addition, the BJP
government in Maharashtra has supported the idea of reservations for Marathas (a
dominant caste of farmers). The fact that a party that has consistently claimed that
caste politics serve to divide the nation has decided to play this card too is a sign of
this strategy’s resilience.

In the years ahead, caste politics may well gain momentum at the expense of Hindu
communalism and indirectly contribute to a more secular approach to politics by
dividing the pan-Hindu coalition that the BJP depends on for its majority. This
development is all the more likely to be the case if class considerations (such as the
country’s urban/rural divide) become more salient. Such developments would
probably bring social and socioeconomic issues back to the fore and could serve as a
counterweight to resurgent Hindu majoritarianism.
Uniform Civil Code:
What is Uniform Civil Code:

Uniform civil code of India is a term referring to the concept of an overarching civil
law code in India. The uniform civil code administers the same set of secular civil
laws to govern all people irrespective of their religion, caste, or tribe. This supersedes
the right of citizens to be governed under different personal laws based on their
religion or caste or tribe- such codes are in place in most Modern nations. The
common areas covered by a civil code include laws related to the acquisition and
administration of property, marriage, divorce, and adoption. The constitution of India
attempts to set a uniform civil code for its citizens as a directive principle, or a goal to
be achieved. The demand for a uniform civil code essentially means unifying all the
personal laws to have one set of secular laws dealing with these aspects that will
apply to all citizens of India irrespective of the community they belong to. Although
the exact contours of such a uniform code have not been spelt out, it should
presumably incorporate the most modern and progressive aspects of all existing
personal laws while discarding those that are retrograde.

Historic Aspect:

The Hastings Plan was created in 1772 by the East India Company. In order to apply
"native norms," as defined by Maulanas and Pandits, it established civil and criminal
tribunals. This avoided interfering with personal law in an attempt to regulate the
population with the least amount of expense and effort. The policies changed over
time. The Charter Act, commonly referred to as the Government of India Act of 1833,
created the All-India Legislature. In 1840, the "Lex Loci Report" of the First Law
Commission recommended that English law be followed, with the exception of rural
Hindus and Muslims.

The Indian Penal Code was enacted in 1860, and the Evidence and Contract Acts in
1872, based on English Common Law. However, personal rules governing inheritance,
succession, marriage, and religious ceremonies were not addressed consistently.
Whatever their religion, all residents were subject to the same public rules on
evidence, contracts, land, and crime. Disagreements between religious texts and
customs caused confusion. In contravention of Hindu scripture, Shudras permitted
widows to remarry. As a result of public demand, recognition of customary law grew.
Women were frequently discriminated against by religious personal rules, which
prevented them from inheriting, getting married again, or divorcing. Laws to
secularise Hindu customs were first introduced by the British and social reformers.
British authority saw the enactment of legislation pertaining to inheritance and
marriage, such as the Indian Majority Act of 1875.
British interference in Muslim personal law was less due to fears of upsetting
fundamentalists. Acts like the Mussalman Waqf Validating Act 1913 and the Muslim
Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1937 aimed to restore orthodox doctrines.
Overall, there was little interference in personal law during British rule. Hindu law
changes aimed to reduce injustice, while Muslim law changes reinforced Islamic
scriptures. Despite consolidating power, the British allowed religious personal laws to
exist with greater codification.

Constitutional Arguments:

The creation of a Uniform Civil Code was hotly debated at the Constituent
Assembly's inaugural session. It was suggested for the Draft Constitution's Article 35.
Muslim leaders expressed their opposition the loudest and strongest. An
amendment stating that “any group, section or community of people shall not be
obliged to give up its own personal law in case it has such a law” was advocated for
by Indian Union Muslim League member Mohammad Ismail. According to Nazir
Ahmed, the idea of a Uniform Civil Code was incompatible with the freedom of
religion and culture that each and every citizen is entitled to.

A number of Hindu members of parliament expressed their opinions to the contrary.

KM Munshi argued that “Religion must be restricted to spheres which legitimately
appertain to religion, and the rest of life must be regulated, unified and modified in
such a manner that we may evolve, as early as possible into a strong and
consolidated nation.” He also added that a Uniform Civil Code could be enacted by
the state even in the absence of Article 35, as Article 25 of the Constitution
(guaranteeing religious freedom) also gave the state the power to secularise
practices. The Assembly, however, finally passed Article 44 in the Directive Principles
of the Constitution. The Directive Principles are not conventional laws in the sense
that they are not enforceable by any court but are seen as fundamental in the
governance of the country, making it the duty of the state to apply these principles
while making laws to ensure a just society. Article 44 reads, “The State shall
endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of
India.” Muslim leaders were particularly worried about this, seeing it as dangerous to
their freedoms in the future as a minority. B.R. Ambedkar, addressing their concerns,
said that this created a “power” and not an “obligation.” He added that “Sovereignty
is always limited, no matter even if you assert that it is unlimited, because
sovereignty in the exercise of power must reconcile itself to the sentiments of
different communities.”

Prominent women leaders criticised the move, seeing it as insufficient. By making it

a Directive Principle rather than a law in itself, it seemed to them that the state was
leaving the state with an option not to enforce it at all. Academic Paula Banerjee
declared that the drafters of the Constitution had made sure the issue would “never
be addressed,” while Aparna Mehta wrote in retrospect that the “failure of the Indian
state to provide a uniform civil code, consistent with its democratic secular and
socialist declarations, further illustrates the modern state's accommodation of the
traditional interests of a patriarchal society.”

Meanwhile, Articles 25-28 of the Indian Constitution, meanwhile, guarantee religious

freedom to Indian citizens and permit religious organisations to conduct their own
affairs. Article 44 of the Constitution requires the Indian state to apply directive
principles and common law for all Indian citizens while establishing a nation’s
policies. Due to the fact that Uniform Civil Code in India does not make distinctions
based on gender or sexual orientation, this drought also inspires hope for the
LGBTQIA+ population in India. No applicable law in India up to this point has
acknowledged same-sex marriages as legal. Difference between civil laws and
criminal laws Civil laws are impacted by faith, although criminal laws in India are
uniform and apply to all people equally, regardless of their religious views. The
personal laws which govern in civil disputes have always been applied in accordance
with constitutional standards, despite being swayed by religious scriptures

Constitutional, Penal and Legislative Provisions:

The Concurrent List structure has allowed religion and state to overlap, granting
many religions in India legal protection for personal laws and official funding for
religious schools. Even while this government action is in line with religious
teachings, it is both unfair and contradictory. A 1951 Religious and Charitable
Endowment, for instance According to Indian law, state governments are permitted
to take control of Hindu temples by force, to own and run them, to collect donations,
and to use the proceeds for any purpose other than supporting Hindu temples, such
as the upkeep of rival religious institutions. Additionally, Indian law permits Islamic
religious institutions to provide religious indoctrination and get partial financial
support from the state and central governments of India, if the school acknowledges
that it will not discriminate against any student on the basis of race, religion, or any
other factor, and that the student has the right to choose not to participate in
religious indoctrination if he or she so requests. Government-owned and managed
educational institutions are prohibited from teaching religion; however, religious
endowments and sects are permitted to start their own schools, teach religion, and
receive some public funding. However, when it comes to legal problems, modern
India has an uneven legal system, and individual religious beliefs influence personal
legal rules in areas like marriage, divorce, inheritance, and alimony. Muslim personal
law is based on Sharia, according to judicial pronouncements on secularism,
particularly those made after Bommai, whilst Hindu, Christian, and Sikh Indians are
subject to common law. If a religious group so mandates, Indian law allows them to
enforce their own religious law; otherwise, state laws take precedence.

The various personal laws are:

1. The Converts' Marriage Dissolution Act, 1866

2. The Indian Divorce Act, 1869
3. The Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872
4. The Kazis Act, 1880
5. The Anand Marriage Act, 1909
6. The Indian Succession Act, 1925
7. The Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929
8. The Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936
9. The Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, 1939
10. The Special Marriage Act, 1954
11. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
12. The Foreign Marriage Act, 1969
13. The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986
14. The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2017

Constitutional Aspect:

Article 44 of the Constitution of India requires the State to strive to secure for its
citizens a Common Civil Code throughout India. Secular activities, such as
inheritance covered by personal laws, should be separated from religion. A uniform
law thus prepared and made applicable to all would promote national unity. It was
pointed out at the time that, firstly, as Common Civil Code would infringe the
fundamental right of freedom of religion as mentioned in Article 25 , and secondly, it
would amount to a tyranny to the minority. The first objection is misconceived
because secular activity associated with religious practice is exempted from this
guarantee and since personal laws (as argued from thispoint of view) pertain to
secular activities, they fall within the regulatory power of the state. Regarding the
second point, nowhere in advanced Muslim countries has the personal law of each
minority been recognized as so sacrosanct as to prevent the enactment of a civil
code. In Turkey and Egypt no minority is permitted to have suchrights.

The term civil code is used to cover the entire body of laws governing rights relating
to property and otherwise in personal matters like marriage, divorce, maintenance,
adoption and inheritance. As things stand, there are different laws governing these
aspects for different communities in India. Thus, the laws governing inheritance or
divorce among Hindus would be different from those pertaining to Muslims or
Christians and so on. (1950-1985): The framers of the constitution were convinced that
a certain amount of modernization was required before a uniform civil code could be
imposed on citizens belonging to different religions. It was also feared that any
attempt to ignore personal laws of various religions might lead to civil war, rioting
and social unrest. India’s leaders at the time wanted a secular constitution on the
model of a western democracy. However, what resulted was not secularism in the
western sense of the word, but rather a ‘secular’ state with religious laws for its
religious groups. Thus, the forefathers of constitution who imposed several reforms
upon the Hindu law were cowed down by the threats of Islamists and kept the sharia
strictly unaltered. Hence, the Muslims and the Christians had to be governed by their
own set of laws.

The Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 extended to whole of India except the state of
Jammu and Kashmir. The effect of the Hindu marriage act was to prohibit polygamy
amongst Hindus and to increase the right of a divorced wife to maintenance or
alimony. The act applied to everyone in India except Muslims, Christians, Parsees and
Jews.

Since Jews and Parsees are a small minority, Islam remained de facto the only large
community with a distinct religious law that had not been reformed to reflect
modern concepts. The legal practice of excluding Muslims continued with the
passage of the dowry prohibition act of 1961 which specifically excluded,

“Dowry” or “Mehr” in the case of persons to whom the Muslim personal law (Shariat)
applies”. In 1973 on a debate over the revision of the criminal procedure code, it was
pointed out in regard to the maintenance of divorced wives that in cases involving
Muslims, the court should take note as to whether the woman had received
maintenance under the personal law. For Muslims, this is the period of iddat or 3
months after the divorce.
While the period of 1950-1985 can be summed up as one where Muslim personal
laws were exempted from legislation and they remained un-reformed, it can also be
seen as a period where there were secular avenues opened to Muslims, the biggest
of which was the passage of the special marriage act, 1954. The idea behind this act
was to give everyone in India the ability to marry outside the personal law, in what
we would call a civil marriage. As usual the law applied to all of India, except Jammu
and Kashmir. In many respects, the act was almost identical to the Hindu marriage
act of 1955, which gives some idea as to how secularized the law regarding Hindus
had become. The special marriage act allowed Muslims to marry under it and
thereby retain their protections, generally beneficial to Muslim women that could
not be found in the personal law. Under the act polygamy was illegal and inheritance
and succession would be governed by the Indian succession rather than the
respective Muslim personal law. Divorce also would be governed by the secular law
and maintenance of a divorced wife would be along the lines set down in the civil
law.

Personal Laws under Assault (1985-2005):

The Shah Bano case led the Supreme Court on 23 April 1985 to judge that the
divorcee Shah Bano was entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of criminal
procedure code (CrPC). The government of Rajeev Gandhi acted quickly, passing the
Muslim women act of 1986, a law that essentially provided for maintenance for
Muslim women outside the criminal code, thus ensuring that Muslim women were
not protected under the constitutional right to equality, and that they could no
longer have recourse to section 125 of the CrPC. The act was an improvement on the
former divorce rights under the Shariat Act , or Muslim personal laws that Shah Bano
had found wanting. Those wishing to reform the Muslim personal laws have often
cited Muslim countries as examples that such reform is possible. Terence Farais, in
his chapter, the development of Islamic law, points out that the 1961 Muslim family
law ordinance of Pakistan “makes it obligatory for a man who desires to take a
second wife to obtain a written permission from a government appointed arbitration
council”. The interesting point regarding Pakistan is that until 1947 India and
Pakistan had governed Muslims under Shariat act of 1937. However, by 1961 Pakistan,
a Muslim country, had actually reformed its Muslim law more than India had, and
this remains true today.

If you will look to the countries in Europe which have a civil code, everyone who goes
there from any part of the world and every minority has to adhere to the Civil Code. It
is not felt to be tyrannical to the minority. Our first problem and the most important
problem is to produce national unity in this country. We think we have national unity,
but there are many factors- and important factors- which still offer serious dangers
to our national consolidation. Communalism breeds discrimination at two levels: one,
between people of different religions and two, between the two sexes. This
dangerous and ruinous effect should be done away with, possibly by introducing a
Uniform Civil Code. For women who constitute almost half the population of India,
the Uniform Civil Code would provide them with equality and justice in courts of law-
irrespective of their religion in matters pertaining to marriage, divorce, maintenance,
custody of children, inheritance rights, adoption etc. The only step taken forward in
this direction was the codification of the Hindu law in spite of great protest; but the
codificationof Muslim law or enacting a Common Civil Code is a sensitive issue owing
to its politicization. Enlightened Muslim opinion however, is in favour of codification.

Notable Cases:
In the 1985 case of Muhammad Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, also referred to
as the Shah Bano case, the Supreme Court for the first time ordered the Parliament
to draft a Uniform Civil Code. After receiving triple talaq from her husband, a
penurious Muslim woman filed for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court ruled that under Section 125, a Muslim
woman has the right to receive maintenance from her husband. The Court further
declared that the Constitution's Article 44 is still unenforceable. Y. V. Chandrachud,
the country's Chief Justice at the time, said that ""A common civil code will help the
cause of national integration by removing disparate loyalties to law which have
conflicting ideologies”.

Following this ruling, there were protests, gatherings, and talks all around the
country. The Shah Bano case ruling was overturned by the government led by Rajiv
Gandhi at the time through the Muslim Women (Right to Protection on Divorce) Act,
1986, which restricted a Muslim woman's ability to get maintenance under Section
125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Supreme Court's comment that the UCC
should not be implemented unless there is a demand from inside the government
or Parliament was the justification offered for the Act's implementation. This was
stated to be non-binding on both parties.

In Mary Roy v. State of Kerala, the question argued before the Supreme Court was
that certain provisions of the Travancore Christian Succession Act, 1916, were
unconstitutional under Article 14.

Under these provisions, on the death of an intestate, his widow was entitled to have
only a life interest terminable at her death or remarriage and his daughter. It was
also argued that the Travancore Act had been superseded by the Indian Succession
Act, 1925. The Supreme Court avoided examining the question whether gender
inequality in matters of succession and inheritance violated Art.14, but, nevertheless,
ruled that the Travancore Act had been superseded by the Indian Succession Act
Mary Roy has been characterised as a “momentous" decision in the direction of
ensuring gender equality in the matter of succession.

Finally, the Supreme Court has issued a directive to the Union of India in Sarla
Mudgal v. Union of India to “endeavour" framing a Uniform Civil Code and report to it
by August, 1996 the steps taken. The Supreme Court opined that: "Those who
preferred to remain in India after the partition fully knew that the Indian leaders did
not believe in two- nation or three "nation theory and that in the Indian Republic
there was to be only one nation- and no community could claim to remain a
separate entity on the basis of religion"

The SC’s comments on the Lily Thompson case are worth noting. The Court said that
the directives as detailed in Part IV of the Constitution are not enforceable in courts
as they do not create any justifiable rights in favour of any person. The Supreme
Court has no power to give directions for enforcement of the Directive Principles.
Therefore, to allay all apprehensions, it is reiterated that the Supreme Court had not
issued any directions for the codification of a Common Civil Code.

Hindu Personal Laws:

The Supreme Court in the Sarla Mudgal case of 1995 took on the government for not
having initiated any steps in the direction of introduction of a Uniform Civil Code.
Justice Kuldip Singh and Justice R.M. Sahai in their judgement observed,

“The utmost that has been done is to codify the Hindu law in the form of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the Hindu Minority and
Guardianship Act, 1956 and the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 which
have replaced the traditional Hindu law based on different schools of thought and
scriptural laws into one unified code. When more than 80% of the citizens have
already been brought under the codified personal law there is no justification
whatsoever to keep in abeyance, any more, the introduction of "uniform civil code"
for all citizens in the territory of India.”

The main issue in this case was bigamy by Hindu men. However, this got sidetracked,
and the uniform civil code became a political plank in the elections that followed. Up
till date, the various presumptions made by the judgment have remained
unaddressed, some of which are listed below: a) Hindu marriages are monogamous
in nature;

b) The judiciary has consistently and systematically upheld the principle of

monogamy among Hindus by penalising the errant husbands;

c) The only breach of monogamy among Hindus is by conversion to Islam. To quote

from the judgment, "there is an open inducement to a Hindu husband, who wants to
enter into a second marriage to become a Muslim"

d) A uniform civil code will plug this loophole and ameliorate the sufferings of Hindu
women:
e) All the four petitions which the judgment dealt with were filed by women whose
husbands had converted to Islam and remarried: and

f) Both the judges who heard the matter advocated enforcement of a uniform civil
code on a priority basis as the only remedy to conversion and bigamy by Hindu men.

Until 1955, Hindu marriages were polygamous and hence Hindu men did not attract
the penal provision of Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. The Hindu Marriage Act
of 1955 for the first time laid down the principle of monogamy. Additionally, even in
spite of the Hindu Code Bill, the inheritance rights of women according to Hindu
personal law shows that equal rights are not given to women on the ground that it
would disturb family peace, lead to fight between brothers and sisters, result in
fragmentation of land and so on. So, patriarchal order of family is promoted. When a
woman is denied the ownership, inheritance and matrimonial rights, it indicates
male dominance and dismissal of women's labour at home. Custody and adoption
laws also enforce the notion of father as the natural guardian. A married Hindu
woman is not allowed to adopt a child in her own name. Thus, there is legitimisation
of male dominance in a family system. Similarly, the Hindu succession law protects
son’s rights by keeping the provision of making a will. The Sikh, Jain, and Buddhist
communities in India are governed by the same civil laws as the Hindus.

Muslim Personal Laws:

As far as the Muslim perspective is concerned, some part of the Community not to
be opposed to the idea of a common code as such since they can very well accept
any law, provided it does not prohibit them from doing what is fard (compulsory) or
forces them to do what is haram (prohibited) in the religion. Now it should be
realised that though Islam gives permission for polygamy it does not hold it to be
fard. So even if a Muslim is made to live under a law that established monogamy, he
could abide by the law as polygamy is not fard. However, when given an option they
would certainly prefer Shariyat Law over other laws.
As per Shariyat law, legal adoption is prohibited in Islam as is explicitly stated in the
Quran (33:4), “...neither has He made your adopted sons as your own sons”.

In relation to marriage, Muslims are allowed to marry more than one wife but there is
an upper limit of four as promulgated by the Quran (4:3), “Marry a woman of your
choice in two, three or four but if you can't do justice, marry only one.”

The consent of both the spouses in the marriage contract is essential for the
validation of a marriage under Muslim personal laws.

Divorce is another aspect of personal laws and the Prophet conceded that of all the
things, divorce is most tasteful to God, however it was allowed with certain
restrictions, The Quran says in Chapter 4, verse 35, “If you fear a breach among them,
then appoint two arbitrators, one from his family and one from hers. If they seek to
set things alright, Allah will call their reconciliation.” This conception of divorce
however does not seem consistent with the triple talaq that is being practiced by the
Muslims with immunity in this part of the subcontinent.

Regarding guardianship, there are specific rules, both in Hindu law as well as in
Muslim law. The details may differ but the substantive principle that the “interests of
the child” should be a supreme consideration has been accepted by all systems.

A brief reference to the problem of maintenance is necessary. Under the Muslim law,
it is a duty of the faithful husband to maintain his wife with the same standard of
living which he has. The Quran ordains the same in the following verses, chapter 2,
verses 240 and 241, “Those of who you die and leave widows should bequeath for
their widows a year's maintenance without expulsion. For divorced women also,
there shall be provision to what is fair.” It was on ground of these verses that Mr.
Daniel Latif argued in the Supreme Court in the Shah Bano's case.
Christian Personal Laws:
The Christians in India have expressed varied opinions with regard to different
aspects of the personal laws. A part of the Christian community believes that Section
10 of the Divorce Act is discriminatory against women, since much is expected by
way of proof from them as against men. Most Christians (both Catholics and
Protestants) support the introduction of a uniform civil code though with some
reservations. For example, the Catholics prefer annulment of marriage over divorce.
On the point of adoption, the Christians want full adoption to be legalised. Now there
is a prohibition in Christian law; they cannot adopt and hence Christians are sent
abroad for adoption. All of them are of the uniform view that all aspects of Christian
personal law are negotiable. On the point of succession, they believe that though the
Indian Succession Act is quite satisfactory, in case of intestacy, the Christian
customary laws, that are discriminatory must go. According to them, the widow
must get full rights in a husband's property to be divided between the children, as
and when she likes. In the John Vallamattom & Anr vs Union of India case 2003, the
Supreme Court declared Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act to be void as it
found the provision to be discriminatory and violative of articles 14, 15, 25 and 26 of
Constitution. The Section stated that “No man having a nephew or niece or any
nearer relative shall have power to bequeath any property to religious or charitable
uses, except by a Will executed not less than twelve months before his death, and
deposited within six months from its execution in some place provided by law for the
safe custody of the Wills of living persons”. The Christians found this to be an
infringement upon their religious right to practice charities to attain spiritual
salvation.
Parsis and the UCC:

Parsis do not believe in conversion as conversion to Zoroatrianism is prohibited by

religion. In case of adoption, Parsis do not like to adopt a non-Parsi child because it is
only a Parsi who is entitled to visit the fire temple and to get the benefits from the
private Parsi trust. They would want full adoption but, in that case, the adopted child
must necessarily be a Parsi, and adoption must be by Parsi parents. Parsis are
supportive of a uniform civil code on the condition that their rituals in marriage are
preserved. Polygamy was and is non-existent in Parsis, in fact, it is a ground for
divorce under the Parsi law.

Special Marriages Act and Indian Succession Act:

It can be argued that a uniform civil code is not a necessity since we already have
non-religion-specific legislation, such as the Special Marriage Act, 1954. However, the
first Special Marriage Act was enacted not in 1954 but in 1872. It required the parties
marrying under it to renounce their religions. It is only when the Special Marriage Act
was re-enacted in 1954 that it permitted interreligious marriages without the couple
having to renounce their religion. Parties marrying under this Act were governed by
the Indian Succession Act, 1926 for purposes of inheritance. Subsequently in 1976,
Hindu couples marrying under the Special Marriage Act of 1954 were taken out of its
ambit, and could inherit under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. This was a retrograde
step, because for a Hindu wife her inheritance was depleted due to the coparcenary
system.
“Merits” of Uniform Civil Code:

If a Uniform Civil Code is enacted and enforced:

● It would help and accelerate national integration;

● Overlapping provisions of law could be avoided;
● Litigation due to personal law world decrease;
● Sense of oneness and the national spirit would be roused,and
● The country would emerge with new force and power to face any odds finally
defeating the communal and the divisions force.

Israel, Japan, France and Russia are strong today because of their sense of oneness
which we have yet to develop and propagate. India has set before itself the ideal of a
secular society and in that context achievement of a uniform civil code becomes all
the more desirable such a code will do away with diversity in matrimonial laws,
simplify the Indian legal system and make Indian society more homogeneous. It will
de-link law from religion which is a very desirable objective to achieve in a secular
and socialist pattern of society. It will create a national identity and will help in
containing fissiparous tendencies in the country. The uniform civil code will contain
uniform provisions applicable to everyone and based on social justice and gender
equality in family matters. According to the Committee on the Status of Women in
India: "The continuance of various personal laws which accept discrimination
between men and women violate the fundamental rights and the Preamble to the
Constitution which promises to secure to all citizens "equality of status, and is
against the spirit of natural integration". The Committee recommended expeditious
implementation of the constitutional directive in Article 44 by adopting a Uniform
Civil Code.
“Demerits” of UCC:
No urgent requirement: The code is neither a matter of priority nor a sine qua non for
national integration the code is considered to be distant social objective some
intellectuals feel that implementation of the code should logically pass through
three stages:

The first stage is the codification of the personal laws of various communications so
that over a period of time there is adequate basis in terms of comparative
jurisprudence to serve as the foundation for the principles of the uniform civil code.
There also needs to be a transitional phase of optionality. If the code comes into
conflict with the personal laws of any community then the particular community
must be granted exemption

Operational Problems: Ram Jethmalani talked about a serious practical difficulty in

adopting a uniform code of marriage- since most people do not take the recourse to
Special Marriage Act, 1954 and prefer religiously formalized marriages, it is difficult to
think of a common code borrowing from all religions and customs. He thinks that
the proponents of the code haven’t given serious thought to what it would look like
and how different religious customs associated with the solemnization of marriages
would be accommodated.

Wouldn’t significantly improve on the democratic ideal of India: In Nepal, the

establishment of a uniform civil code did not improve upon national integration.
Hence, to consider the UCC as a go-to solution for all problems would be incorrect. A
democracy, it can be argued, can survive even by respecting the separate personal
laws of different communities. It depends on the specific historical experience of the
nation and the texture of society. Indeed, many democratic nations of the world
thrive today without the existence of aUCC.

Threat to minorities: The code is viewed by some as the threat to their religious
identity since code will seek to merge all personal laws into one. Historical abuse of
power by majority communities makes the minorities naturally wary of further
reforms. Thus, convincing all to be comfortable and accepting of a Uniform civil code
will turn out to be a long and arduous process, one that will perhaps end in failure.

Civil Riots: Given the unfavourable response in the idea of the code it is very likely
that protest would occur if the code is shoved down the throats of the Indian public
given the strained ethnic and religious fabric of this country. It is better to leave
things that may cause tension be.

Goa Civil Code:

Goa is the one of the only states in India which continues to be governed by
Portuguese Laws with respect to Family Laws relating to marriage and Succession
Laws. The corresponding laws of India are not extended to the state of Goa.
Portuguese law is however applicable only to a Goan. A Goan citizenship under
Article 18 of the Portuguese Civil Code, is acquired by;

1. birth in Goa, or whose father is born in Goa or whose grandfather is born in

Goa, or
2. a woman by virtue of marriage, or
3. by naturalisation.

By default, every Goan marries under a system called Communion of Assets,

whereby, from the time of his marriage, his spouse acquires half undivided right in
the assets of the other, unless a contract called the Ante Nuptial Contract is executed
to avoid such system of law. In the matter of gratuitous disposition of properties i.e.,
by will or gift, there is a prohibition by which no disposition can exceed half right of a
person. This is called disposable quota and the remaining part is called
non-disposable quota.

Uttarakhand Civil Code:

On February 4, 2024, the Uttarakhand Cabinet approved the final draft of the
Uniform Civil Code (UCC), and on February 6, 2024, Chief Minister Pushkar Singh
Dhami introduced the UCC bill in the State Assembly. A committee formed in 2022,
led by retired Supreme Court judge Ranjana Prakash Desai, drafted the UCC. The
committee included retired judge Pramod Kohli, social activist Manu Gaur, former
Uttarakhand Chief Secretary Shatrughan Singh, and Doon University Vice Chancellor
Surekha Dangwal, who compiled a 740-page draft report (Hindustan Times, 2024).

The bill includes provisions banning polygamy and child marriage, granting equal
property rights to sons and daughters, and ensuring equal rights for adoptive and
biological children. It requires live-in couples to register their partnership within a
month and mandates parental approval. The UCC sets the marriage age at 18 for
women and 21 for men, imposes a one-year waiting period before divorce, and
recognizes marriage ceremonies according to religious traditions. This legislation
fulfills a BJP election promise from 2022. Critics argue that implementing a UCC
faces challenges due to India's religious and cultural diversity, political sensitivity, and
legal complexity. Minority religious groups fear it might infringe on their freedoms,
and political parties are wary of alienating voters. Legal experts must craft a fair code
that respects individual rights. The success of such reform depends on social
awareness and acceptance, along with political will and consensus. The debate
involves balancing equality and individual liberty with cultural and religious
traditions. K.M. Munshi (1948) argued for a UCC to unify personal laws for national
consolidation. Since the adoption of the Indian Constitution, there has been a
tension between maintaining diversity and promoting federalization and
decentralization of power. Bhikhu Parekh (2008) emphasized that identity is shaped
by societal interactions and self-understanding. Peter D'Souza (2015) highlighted the
conflict between individual and group rights.

State intervention in personal laws, as seen with the ban on triple Talaq, is seen as
necessary for promoting social justice. B.R. Ambedkar supported state intervention
in religious matters to advance social reforms. The Indian situation with the UCC is
complex, with concerns about minority assimilation into the dominant culture.
However, a rational and inclusive approach to framing a national UCC, informed by
the Uttarakhand experience, could promote secularism, unity, and
non-discrimination from a constitutional and human rights perspective.
This guide is not meant to be exhaustive or authoritative. You are
encouraged to go beyond the contents of this guide and even
question the content mentioned here.