Why in news?

PM Modi reiterated his support for a nationwide Uniform Civil Code (UCC) during a discussion in the Lok Sabha on the 75-year journey of the Constitution.

He highlighted that the Constituent Assembly extensively debated the UCC and envisioned its implementation by future governments. The Prime Minister quoted Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who advocated for ending religion-based personal laws, and K.M. Munshi, who viewed the UCC as essential for national unity and modernization.

Emphasizing the vision of the Constitution’s drafters, he stated that the government is working with full commitment to establish a “secular civil code.”

What’s in today’s article?

• Uniform Civil Code (UCC)
• UCC debate in Constituent Assembly
• KM Munshi’s Support for the UCC
• Ambedkar’s Support for UCC in Principle
• Outcome of the Debate on Article 35

Uniform Civil Code

• About
  • A UCC would provide for one law for the entire country, applicable to all religious communities, in their personal matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption etc.
  • In other words, UCC is a set of rules/regulations, which proposes to replace the personal laws based on the scriptures and customs of each major religious community in the country with a common set governing every citizen.
• Constitutional position
  • Article 44 of the Constitution lays down that the state shall endeavour to secure a UCC for citizens throughout the territory of India.
    • Article 44 is among the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP).
    • Directive Principles are not enforceable by court, but are supposed to inform and guide governance.

UCC debate in Constituent Assembly

• Background of the UCC Debate
  • On November 23, 1948, the Constituent Assembly debated a draft Article 35 (now Article 44) on the UCC, which was included in the DPSP.
  • The draft stated that the State would aim to secure a UCC for all citizens of India.
  • However, concerns were raised about its impact on religious communities, leading to its non-binding inclusion under the DPSPs.
• Opposition to the UCC: Several members expressed apprehensions.
  • Mohamad Ismail Sahib of the Indian Union Muslim League argued that a uniform code would not necessarily ensure harmony but could lead to discontent by interfering with personal laws.
  • Naziruddin Ahmad echoed similar concerns, stating that religious laws, deeply connected with beliefs and practices, should remain untouched.

KM Munshi’s Support for the UCC

• Supported UCC
  • K. M. Munshi strongly advocated for the UCC, countering the criticism that it would be “tyrannical” to minorities.
  • He pointed out that even advanced Muslim countries had not treated personal laws as sacrosanct to hinder a civil code.
  • Munshi also addressed Hindu opposition to the UCC, particularly regarding laws on inheritance and succession, which were seen as part of religion.
  • He argued that without a UCC, gender equality could not be achieved.
  • Highlighting discrimination against women in Hindu law, Munshi stated that a civil code was essential to elevate the position of women to equality with men, as enshrined in the Fundamental Rights.
• UCC and National Unity
  • Munshi linked the UCC to national integration, urging the Muslim members to abandon an “isolationist outlook.”
  • He emphasized that religion should be confined to its legitimate sphere, while the rest of life must be regulated to unify and strengthen the nation.
  • He argued that the UCC would not be tyrannical to minorities but instead foster a stronger, consolidated nation.

Ambedkar’s Support for UCC in Principle

• Ambedkar’s position
  • B.R. Ambedkar, while advocating for Article 35 (now Article 44), refrained from discussing the merits or demerits of implementing a Uniform Civil Code (UCC). However, he defended its inclusion in the DPSP.
• India’s Existing Uniformity in Laws
  • Ambedkar countered the argument that a uniform code was unfeasible in a diverse and vast country like India.
  • He highlighted the existence of a uniform legal system in areas such as criminal law, which is uniformly enforced through the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
• Challenging the Notion of Uniformity in Muslim Personal Law
  • Ambedkar questioned the claim that Muslim personal law had always been uniform across India. He cited examples:
    • North-West Frontier Province followed Hindu Law in matters of succession until 1935.
    • Regions like United Provinces, Central Provinces, and Bombay periodically operated under Hindu law in specific matters.
• Limiting Religion’s Jurisdiction
• Ambedkar argued against religion having “vast, expansive jurisdiction” that would prevent legislative reforms.
• He stressed the need for liberty to reform India’s social system, which he described as rife with “inequities, inequalities, and discrimination.”
• He opposed excluding personal laws from the jurisdiction of the State.
• Power to Legislate, Not Immediate Enforcement
  • Ambedkar reassured apprehensive members that granting the State the power to legislate on personal laws did not mean immediate or objectionable enforcement.
  • He emphasized that the government must respect and reconcile with the sentiments of different communities while exercising this power.

Outcome of the Debate on Article 35

• At the end of the debate, Article 35 was put to vote and passed. It was later renumbered as Article 44 of the Indian Constitution.
• Constitutional law experts noted that while Article 44 states, “the state shall endeavour”, other Directive Principles use stronger phrases like “shall in particular direct its policy” or “shall be obligation of the state”.
• This indicates that the state's duty to implement Article 44 is comparatively less emphasized than other Directive Principles.