The South India Times
(Spcl Correspondent)
Quite unsurprisingly, the All-India Ittehadul-e-Muslimeen (AIMIM chief and Hyderabad MP, Asaduddin came out to oppose the move by some states to introduce Uniform Civil Code, which was hanging fire for the past 4-5 decades.Owaisi appears to be over enthusiastic to get into the headlines by hook or crook by jumping the gun on all and sundry initiatives proposed by either the Centre or BJP-ruled states while quoting Samvidhan (Constitution) in the same breath.
None should find fault him for his opposition to the UCC, as he is entitled to his political views and agenda. Moreover, he has to play his part because television channels have now turned him into the lone ‘messiah’ of the Indian Muslim community.
Owaisi’s double speak is evident—he opposed ‘triple talaq which is not only inhuman but also unacceptable in a civilized society. Then he followed it up by opposing the ‘restrictions’ on ‘hijab’ following an order by the Karnataka government, according which schools and colleges had to adhere to a uniform prescribed by the institution. He unabashedly compares the ‘hijab’ with Hindu girls’ ‘bindi’ or Sikh‘s kirpan’. Does he know that in some Christian missionary schools, the girl students are not allowed to display bindi on the girl student’s forehead? Now, he wants to join the chorus to oppose the Uniform Civil Code promise made by the two poll-bound state governments.
What is UCC?
A Uniform Civil Code means that all sections of the society irrespective of their religion shall be treated equally according to a national civil code, which shall apply to all uniformly.
They cover areas like- Marriage, divorce, maintenance, inheritance, adoption, and succession of the property. It is based on the premise that there is no connection between religion and law in modern civilization.
What is Article 44?
Article 44 corresponds with Directive Principles of the State Policy stating that the State shall Endeavour to provide for its citizens a uniform civil code (UCC) throughout the territory of India. However, Article 37 of the Constitution itself makes it clear the DPSP “shall not be enforceable by any court”. Nevertheless, they are “fundamental in the governance of the country”. This indicates that although our constitution itself believes that a Uniform Civil Code should be implemented in some manner, it does not make this implementation mandatory. Yet, in the changed environs in the society, where some political parties indulged in appeasement politics, the lack of a Uniform Civil Code is creating unrest as well as division in a developing society like ours.The debate for a uniform civil code dates back to the colonial period in India.
• Pre-Independence
(colonial era)
• The Lex Loci Report of October 1840- It stressed the importance and necessity of uniformity in the codification of Indian law, relating to crimes, evidence, and contract. But, it also recommended that the personal laws of Hindus and Muslims should be kept outside such codification.
• The Queen’s 1859 Proclamation- It promised absolute non-interference in religious matters.
So while criminal laws were codified and became common for the whole country, personal laws continue to be governed by separate codes for different communities.
• Post-Colonial era (1947-1985)
During the drafting of the constitution, prominent leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru and Dr B R Ambedkar pushed for a uniform civil code. However, they included the UCC in the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP, Article 44) mainly due to opposition from religious fundamentalists and a lack of awareness among the masses during the time.
Continued From Page 1
Some of the reforms of this period were:-
The Hindu code bill -The bill was drafted by Dr.B R Ambedkar to reform Hindu laws, which legalized divorce, opposed polygamy, and gave rights of inheritance to daughters. Amidst intense opposition of the code, a diluted version was passed via four different laws.
Succession Act- The Hindu Succession Act, of 1956, originally did not give daughters inheritance rights in ancestral property. They could only ask for a right to sustenance from a joint Hindu family. But this disparity was removed by an amendment to the Act on September 9, 2005
The Hindu Marriage Act
Minority and Guardianship Act
Adoptions and Maintenance Act
Special Marriage Act:
• It was enacted in 1954 which provided for civil marriages outside of any religious personal law.
• Judicial interventions:
Shah Bano case (1985):-
A 73-year-old woman called Shah Bano was divorced by her husband using triple talaq (saying “I divorce thee” three times) and was denied maintenance. She approached the courts and the District Court and the High Court ruled in her favor. This led to her husband appealing to the Supreme Court saying that he had fulfilled all his obligations under Islamic law.
The Supreme Court ruled in her favor in 1985 under the “maintenance of wives, children and parents” provision (Section 125) of the All India Criminal Code, which applied to all citizens irrespective of religion. Further, It recommended that a uniform civil code be set up.
Facts about the case:
• Under Muslim personal law, maintenance was to be paid only till the period of iddat. (three lunar months-roughly 90 days).
• Section 125 of CrPC (criminal procedure code) applied to all citizens, provided for the maintenance of the wife.
Impact – After this historic decision, nationwide discussions, meetings, and agitations were held. The then government under pressure passed The Muslim Women’s (Right to protection on divorce) Act (MWA) in 1986, which made Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code inapplicable to Muslim women.
Daniel Latifi Case: Muslim Women’s Act (MWA) was challenged because it violated the right to equality under Articles 14& 15 as well as the right to life under Article 21. The Supreme Court while holding the law as constitutional harmonized it with section 125 of CrPC and held that the amount received by a wife during the iddat period should be large enough to maintain her during iddat as well as provide for her future. Thus under the law of the land, a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to the provision of maintenance for a lifetime or until she is remarried.
Sarla Mudgal Case: In this case, the question was whether a Hindu husband married under Hindu law, by embracing Islam, can solemnize a second marriage. The court held that the Hindu marriage solemnized under Hindu law can only be dissolved on any of the grounds specified under the Hindu Marriage Act 1955. Conversion to Islam and marrying again would not by itself dissolve the Hindu marriage under the act and thus, a second marriage solemnized after converting to Islam would be an offense under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).John Vallamattom Case: In this case, a priest from Kerala, John Vallamattom challenged the Constitutional validity of Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act, which is applicable to non-Hindus in India. Mr. Vallamatton contended that Section 118 of the act was discriminatory against Christians as it imposes unreasonable restrictions on their donation of property for religious or charitable purposes by will. The bench struck down the section as unconstitutional.
Hence, Owaisi should first know that having the religious name in his party itself is unconstitutional and does not go well with the spirit of ‘secularism.’ And, perhaps, the Election Commission of India, though realized its mistake in granting party names to some parties like the Indian Muslim League (IML) or AIMIM, opt to slap notices to these parties.
Doesn’t Owaisi hold a brief on ‘secularism’ or ‘Constitution’? Can there be any more crude joke than this? Well, one can fool once, or twice, but not always. People of this country realized the mistakes that they were forced to commit deliberately by the party in power for the past six decades. Thanks to social media, awareness among people of this great country, which preached ‘Sanathan Dharma’s’ tenets like ‘tolerance’, ‘equality’ and ‘respect to women’ to the entire world as it happens to be oldest of all, rabble rousers like Owaisi or illiterates like the Congressmen or ‘ignorant of facts’ like some regional parties who mortgaged their ‘self-respect’ to retain or grab power, are now in a panic mode.
And the UCC is only the option before India to ensure ‘justice’ for every citizen of this great nation irrespective of their caste, creed, or religion. Those who do not wish to bring all faiths under one single law to render justice can as well find their destinations elsewhere in the world.
