Daily Editorial analysis:-

GS2: Secularism, Significant provisions of constitution

Article 44: State shall endeavor to secure uniform civil code for all of its citizens.

UCC seeks to create uniform laws for marriage, divorce, inheritance and adoption to replace the distinctive religious personal laws.

Constitutional debate over whether to include UCC under fundamental rights or DPSP

Against UCC in Fundamental rights

1. Naziruddin Ahmad of Bengal argued: It obstructs article 25, right to religion, especially for minorities. Takes away their distinct cultural practises in determining their personal laws.
2. It may destroy diversity in India, by creating uniform laws. Religious diversity stands on the edifice of their own personalised relationship governed by personal laws.
3. He also said that UCC cannot be implemented without the consent of minorities.

For inclusion of UCC under FR

1. K M Munshi argued that it doesn’t obstructs right to freedom of religion, as state is empowered to make laws for social reforms, and prevent personal laws from discriminating women in the name of religion.

B.R.Ambedkar took ambivalent stand saying that, for some intial years UCC should be voluntary in nature and it cannot be influenced forcefully. The matter settled with 5:4 majority, Sardar Vallabhai Patel, who was heading sub committee of constitution desired not to include it in FRs.

CONSTITUTIONAL VIABILITY OF UCC

Recently, law commission has been constituted at central level to look into the viability of bringing up UCC. Consequently the law commission started eliciting for opinions from all quarters of society.

Challenges confront of LCI

1. Authority vs autonomy
2. Every religion has autonomy to determine its own personal laws. However, state determining personal laws goes against this autonomy.
3. Thus, religion should come forward for their own reforms.
   1. All religion in India including Hindus have their own personal laws. Eg: Hindu marriage act: solemnises marriage through saptapadhi and datta(invocation before fire).
4. Thus, state intervention is seen to be authoritative and coercive.
5. Unity vs uniformity
6. India’s model of diversity is based on pluralism and multiculturalism. It is distinct from Americans melting pot approach.
7. Rather than aiming for equality between religion, governments should aim for equality between men and women within personal laws and other constitutionally violaitive practices.
8. Unity cannot be forged through uniformity, rather it can be done by accommodation of differences.
9. Secularism in India is not like France’s, public prohibition of religious practises.
   1. Indian Secularism isrespecting all religion and cultures. This itself signifies accommodative perspective.
10. Consent and awareness
11. Any Reforms proposed by external authority to personal laws might trigger unified community reactions. Hence, law commission should try to create awareness and build debate friendly environment rather than hostile one.
12. Voluntary steps by religious communities. 
13. All religion should come forward to deal with discriminatory personal laws and they should understand god ordained personal laws will not inflict in quality based on gender.

In the words of political philosopher Iris Young, as the value of social difference is morerelational and is itself a product of social

processes, we believe that it will be incumbent upon the Commission to strike a fine balance as it should aim to eliminate only those practices that do not meet the benchmarks set by the Constitution.

On Uttarakhand’s UCC

Reforms proposals

1. Gender equality:
2. Equal inheritance: It extends equal property share of women under Muslim personal law, which is currently only 25% share to women.
3. Discriminatory marriages: It will revoke personal codes like triple talaq, iddat(women has waiting period if she want to get remarried), and polygamy.
4. Mandatory registration for live-in relationship partners.
5. Registration enables legitimizing of children born in such relationship,
6. Mandating maintenance in case of desertion.

Opposition to UCC

1. Opinion and inputs of scheduled tribes, 2.9% population, is not considered.
2. Van-Gujjar Tribes has discontent on above matter against UCC.
3. Live-in relationship is encapsulated in right to privacy.
4. Harrassment, social hostilities, intrusive investigations might arise during registration.