The battle lines over the Uniform Civil Code (UCC)—a common code for personal laws applicable to people across religions, castes, etc —are getting drawn yet again. If the 22nd Law Commission seeking public feedback on the imperative for such codification was the trigger for this, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s strong push for it on Tuesday has prompted those opposed to the UCC to close ranks. The PM and the BJP have accused opposition parties of indulging in appeasement and vote-bank politics, while some opposition parties have said that the ruling party is playing “divisive politics” and the push to UCC is an attempt to distract from issues such as the Manipur violence. This kind of toxicity will only increase as elections are drawing near. In any case, the idea of an UCC has been a polarising one right from the days of the Constituent Assembly debates, and it is certain that this time would be no different. But what political parties of all hues must focus on is that there is a Constitutional direction on having such a code. And, thus, a consensus either way is the need of the hour.
Article 44, contained in Part IV of the Constitution, says that the State should “endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India”. While the Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV) are not enforceable by the courts, they form the compass envisioned by the makers of the Constitution to guide the Indian state. So, it is not surprising that the Supreme Court has upheld the idea of such codification in many of its rulings—whether it is the 1985 Shah Bano judgement, or the 1995 Sarla Mudgal judgement. In the Sarla Mudgal, the court said an UCC can take shape only when “statesmen amongst leaders who instead of gaining personal mileage rise above and awaken the masses to accept the change.”
That is obviously easier said than done, particularly in these fraught times. In any case, opponents of the UCC cite the wisdom of the 21st Law Commission report on the issue. While calling for deep reform of family laws to ensure justice is done, the commission had said that the UCC was “neither necessary nor desirable at this stage”. Also, opposition to the idea of UCC has been emerging not from any particular community, but many. There are reports of tribal bodies voicing opposition in the fear that the UCC will dilute some tribal laws. There is yet another view that the focus of initiatives to reform the various personal laws should be the elimination of all forms of discrimination rather than an attempt to bring about uniformity in the laws governing various religions. This would first entail the removal of discriminatory provisions, especially those that affect women, and adoption of some overarching norms rooted in equality.
In sum, an UCC is an idea whose time has come. But in the current milieu of distrust among communities and polarised politics, coercion by the ruling dispensation would only complicate matters. What is needed is gentle persuasion. This is particularly important as the government’s track record in passing landmark legislation is quite poor as important Bills are passed without any relevant discussion. Therefore, if the UCC has to see the light of the day, the ruling dispensation needs to move slowly. A consensus is needed; this is far more important than an election cycle.