[Prev][Next][Index]
Supreme Court directs govt to enact Uniform Civil Code
-
To: ALT-HINDU@cis.ohio-state.edu
-
Subject: Supreme Court directs govt to enact Uniform Civil Code
-
From: Dinesh Agrawal <DXA4@PSUVM.PSU.EDU>
-
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 13:05:28 -0400 (EDT)
-
From DXA4@PSUVM.PSU.EDU Tue May 23 12: 55:14 1995
-
Newsgroups: alt.hindu
-
Organization: Penn State University
SUPREME COURT ASKS PM TO ENACT UNIFORM CIVIL CODE
Times of India, May 11 1995
New Delhi: In a judgement of far-reaching consequences, the Supreme Court today
strongly recommended a civil code common for all communities, declaring illegal
the second marriage by a Hindu husband after conversion to Islam.
A two-judge bench of Mr Justice Kuldip Singh and Mr Justice R Sahai "reques-
ted" the centre through the Prime Minister to have a fresh look at Article 44
of the Constitution which envisages that the government will "endeavour to
secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the terrotory of India"
The court directed the Union law ministry to state what steps the govt had
taken so far to achieve the "goal". The court directed the govt to ask the
Law Commission to draft a comprehensive legislation incorporating the "present-
day concept of human rights for women, in consultation with the Minorities
commission".
The court asked the centre to consider whether a committee to enact the
"conversion of religion act" could be set up immediately to check the abuse
of religion by any person. The law may provide that every citizen who changes
his religion cannot marry another woman unless he divorces his first wife.
The judgement came in the wake of four petitions filed by Hindu women who
had been deserted by their husbands after they converted to Islam. Under the
Islamic law, a man can have four wives, which is not permissible under the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
"The second marriage of a Hindu husband after embracing islam being viola-
tive of justice, equity and good conscience would be void on the ground of
natural justice", the court held.
The court noted many Hindus have changed their religion to Islam "only
for the purpose of escaping the consequences of bigamy".
The judges held that no religion permitted deliberate distortions. Much
apprehension prevailed about bigamy in Islam and many Islamic countries have
codified the personal law to check its abuse. Polygamy has been completely
banned in Syria, Tunisia, Morocco, Pakistan, Iran and the Islamic republics
of the former Soviet Union, the court observed.
Noting that India is a secular country where freedom of religion is the
"core of our culture", the judges said even the slightest deviation shook the
social fabric. "But religious practices, violative of human rights and dignity
and sacredotal suffocation of essentially civil and material freedoms, are
not autonomy but oppression," they added.
Therefore, the judges said, a unified code was imperative "both for the
protection of the oppressed and promotion of national unity and solidarity".
It was necessary that there should be harmony between the two systems of law
just as there should be harmony between two communities, said the court.
"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 Code", said the judges.
They wondered how long the govt of the day would take to implement the
mandate of Article 44. The traditional Hindu law - personal law of the Hindus-
governing inheritance, succession and marriage was given go-by way back in
1955, the court noted.
There was no "justification" whatsoever in delaying the introduction of a
uniform personal law in the country", it said.
The Hindu Law also governs Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains. It, however, does
not apply to Muslims, Chirstians and Parsees. Noting this, the court said
while Article 25 guaranteed religious freedom, Article 44 sought to "divest
religion from social relations and personal laws".
Marriage, succession and like matters of a secular character could not be
brought within the ambit of Articles 25, 26 and 27. Hindu laws relating to
marriage were of "sacramental origin" in the same manner as in the case of
the Muslims or Christians, it held.
Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains have "forsaken their sentiments in the
cause of national unity and integration, some other communities would not,
though the Constitution enjoins the establishement of a common civil code
for the country", the judges observed.
The court said "THOSE WHO PREFERRED TO REMAIN IN INDIA AFTER THE PARTITION,
FULLY KNEW THAT THE INDIAN LEADERS DID NOT BELIEVE IN TWO-NATION OR THREE-
NATION THEORY. THEY WERE ALSO AWARE THAT IN THE INDIAN REPUBLIC THERE WAS TO
BE ONLY ONE NATION - INDIAN NATION. THE COURT SAID "NO COMMUNITY COULD CLAIM
TO REMAIN A SEPARATE ENTITY ON THE BASIS OF RELIGION".
Legislation, not religion, being the authority under which the personal
law was permitted to operate and continued to operate and it could be
superceded/supplemented by introducing a uniform civil code, the court said,
"in this view of the matter no community can oppose the introduction of
uniform civil code for all the citizens in the territory of India."
