No political party in power took this short step despite SC goading
NEW DELHI: When the Constitution was just a year-old, law minister B R Ambedkar had stoically met the charge that the Hindu Code Bill, 1951, was communal in nature as it aimed to codify the personal law of one religious community leaving aside the Muslims, Parsis, Jews and Christians.
On Feb 6, 1951, the architect of the Constitution had countered the members of Parliament who had sought a Uniform Civil Code by saying, “If they want a Civil Code, do they think that it will take very long to have a Civil Code?” He probably had in mind the mandate of Article 44, which said – “The State shall endeavour to secure for citizens a uniform civil code…”.
Ambedkar had said, “Probably the underlying motive why they have made this suggestion is this. As it has taken four or five years to draft the Hindu Code they will probably take ten years to draft a Civil Code. I would like to tell them that the Civil Code is there. If they want it, it can be placed before the House within two days. If they are ready and willing to swallow it, we can pass it in this House in half an hour.” He said by carrying out minor amendments to Indian Succession Act, 1925, and the Special Marriage Act, 1872, “you can have a Civil Code tomorrow”.
Ambedkar resigned as law minister in October 1951. Codification of Hindu personal law was done in 1956, preceded by heated debate in Parliament. ‘Muslim community is not ready for UCC’ argument came from noted lawyer and Muslim League member from West Bengal, Naziruddin Ahmad. Many Hindu MPs opposed the Hindu Code Bill, 1955, and asked why similar simultaneous exercise is not undertaken for Muslims and Christians.
Secularistic conservatism towards reforming Muslim personal laws made PM Jawaharlal Nehru adopt Naziruddin Ahmed’s excuse – “The Muslim Community is not ready”. Ridiculing Nehru, MP J B Kriplani said, ”It is not the (Hindu) Mahasabhites who alone are communal; it is the government also that is communal, whatever it may say. It is passing a communal measure. I charge you with communalism because you are bringing forward a law about monogamy only for Hindu community. Take it from me that the Muslim community is prepared to have it but you are not brave enough to do it… If you want to have (provision of divorce) for Hindu community, have it; but have it for the Catholic community also.”
It took the Supreme Court 30 years to notice political prevarication on implementation of Article 44. In the 1995 Shah Bano case, the SC said, “It is also a matter of regret that Article 44 of our Constitution has remained a dead letter… A common civil code will help the cause of national integration by removing disparate loyalties to laws which have conflicting ideologies. No community is likely to bell the cat by making gratuitous concessions on this issue. It is the State which is charged with the duty of securing a uniform civil code for the citizens of the country.”
The SC in Sarla Mudgal case (1995) said, “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.”
In the Lily Thomas case [2000 (6) SCC 224], SC noted that the government, in two affidavits of August and December 1996, had said it would take steps to frame a uniform code only if the communities which desired such a code approached the government and took the initiative themselves in the matter. It was a refined version of the ‘Muslim community not ready’ argument of 1955.
Today, when every legislative reform – citizenship, agriculture, illegal migration – is opposed with agitation on communal lines, the PM has a difficult task to bring in a uniform civil code. Renaming it as secular civil code will not change ground realities.
NEW DELHI: When the Constitution was just a year-old, law minister B R Ambedkar had stoically met the charge that the Hindu Code Bill, 1951, was communal in nature as it aimed to codify the personal law of one religious community leaving aside the Muslims, Parsis, Jews and Christians.
On Feb 6, 1951, the architect of the Constitution had countered the members of Parliament who had sought a Uniform Civil Code by saying, “If they want a Civil Code, do they think that it will take very long to have a Civil Code?” He probably had in mind the mandate of Article 44, which said – “The State shall endeavour to secure for citizens a uniform civil code…”.
Ambedkar had said, “Probably the underlying motive why they have made this suggestion is this. As it has taken four or five years to draft the Hindu Code they will probably take ten years to draft a Civil Code. I would like to tell them that the Civil Code is there. If they want it, it can be placed before the House within two days. If they are ready and willing to swallow it, we can pass it in this House in half an hour.” He said by carrying out minor amendments to Indian Succession Act, 1925, and the Special Marriage Act, 1872, “you can have a Civil Code tomorrow”.
Ambedkar resigned as law minister in October 1951. Codification of Hindu personal law was done in 1956, preceded by heated debate in Parliament. ‘Muslim community is not ready for UCC’ argument came from noted lawyer and Muslim League member from West Bengal, Naziruddin Ahmad. Many Hindu MPs opposed the Hindu Code Bill, 1955, and asked why similar simultaneous exercise is not undertaken for Muslims and Christians.
Secularistic conservatism towards reforming Muslim personal laws made PM Jawaharlal Nehru adopt Naziruddin Ahmed’s excuse – “The Muslim Community is not ready”. Ridiculing Nehru, MP J B Kriplani said, ”It is not the (Hindu) Mahasabhites who alone are communal; it is the government also that is communal, whatever it may say. It is passing a communal measure. I charge you with communalism because you are bringing forward a law about monogamy only for Hindu community. Take it from me that the Muslim community is prepared to have it but you are not brave enough to do it… If you want to have (provision of divorce) for Hindu community, have it; but have it for the Catholic community also.”
It took the Supreme Court 30 years to notice political prevarication on implementation of Article 44. In the 1995 Shah Bano case, the SC said, “It is also a matter of regret that Article 44 of our Constitution has remained a dead letter… A common civil code will help the cause of national integration by removing disparate loyalties to laws which have conflicting ideologies. No community is likely to bell the cat by making gratuitous concessions on this issue. It is the State which is charged with the duty of securing a uniform civil code for the citizens of the country.”
The SC in Sarla Mudgal case (1995) said, “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.”
In the Lily Thomas case [2000 (6) SCC 224], SC noted that the government, in two affidavits of August and December 1996, had said it would take steps to frame a uniform code only if the communities which desired such a code approached the government and took the initiative themselves in the matter. It was a refined version of the ‘Muslim community not ready’ argument of 1955.
Today, when every legislative reform – citizenship, agriculture, illegal migration – is opposed with agitation on communal lines, the PM has a difficult task to bring in a uniform civil code. Renaming it as secular civil code will not change ground realities.