New Delhi: The Congress and ally Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) were the most strident strident among the opposition parties to oppose the Uniform Civil Code (UCC), which came up for discussion in the parliamentary standing committee on personnel, public grievances, law and justice Monday, ThePrint has learnt.
While the Bharatiya Rashtra Samithi (BRS) remained non-committal, the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) and the Eknath Shinde-faction of the Shiv Sena supported the UCC while the Uddhav Thackeray faction wanted the 22nd Law Commission of India to bring out its report first, MPs who attended the parliamentary panel meeting told ThePrint.
While BJP MPs supported the implementation of UCC, some of them, including parliamentary panel chairman Sushil Kumar Modi, suggested that the northeastern states and tribal areas should be exempted from it.
“They are governed by the sixth schedule and Article 371 (of the Constitution), which gives them special protection. This should be maintained,” a BJP MP told thePrint, justifying the stand.
The panel was hearing the views of the Department of Legal Affairs, Legislative Department and the Law Commission of India on the UCC. Out of the 30 MPs who are members of the parliamentary panel, only 17 MPs from BJP, Congress, BRS, Shiv Sena, BSP, and DMK attended Monday’s meeting, which began with 22nd Law Commission member secretary Khetrabasi Biswal’s hour-long presentation of its 2018 consultation paper, Reform of Family Law.
When MPs asked why the 22nd Law Commission had sought comments on UCC again after it had already done so on its 2018 consultation paper, the official said that at that time, it had not given its recommendation, according to an MP who attended the meeting.
“It’s only now that it sought comments from stakeholders on the review of personal laws,” the MP told ThePrint.
A second MP who attended the meeting quoted Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray) MP Sanjay Raut as insisting that the Law Commission should first submit its report for parties to go through before taking an informed decision.
The BRS is also learnt to have taken this stand.
“The BRS MP said that the Law Commission should come out with their report first. There is a lot of clarification that is required. Only after going through the report, will it be possible for the party to take a stand,” the MP told ThePrint.
Parliamentary sources, meanwhile, quoted Congress as saying that the UCC was not required at this stage, instead suggesting that each law be codified and discriminatory provisions weeded out.
On 14 June, the 22nd Law Commission of India had sought the views of religious organisations and the public on the issue of a UCC. The commission has set a 30-day deadline for feedback on the issue.
A Uniform Civil Code (UCC) typically means having a common law for all citizens of the country that is not based on religion. Personal laws and laws related to inheritance, adoption and succession are likely to be covered by a common code.
Implementation of a UCC has been part of successive BJP election manifestos, including during the Karnataka assembly elections in May.
Uttarakhand, which has a BJP government, is already framing its own common code.
Also Read: UCC can strengthen country, but BJP raising it to cover up its failures, says Mayawati
‘Ensure personal laws don’t contract fundamental rights’
Congress MP Vivek Tankha, who had to leave the meeting midway, submitted a written statement to parliamentary party chairperson Sushil Modi. He later tweeted the letter, in which he said that the 2018 consultation paper, which states that while dealing with the issue of UCC, the Constitution of India, as a whole, it must be borne in mind “as uniformity will come in conflict with many provisions of the Constitution of India”.
“In particular, the sixth schedule and provisions contained in Articles 371 (A) to (I) of the Constitution. It emphatically states that while dealing with the issue it must be kept in mind that all articles of the Constitution of India have to be given effect to, to avoid the ultra vires of the same,” his letter states.
He said he concurred with the views of the commission that in the absence of any consensus on a UCC, the best way forward may be to preserve the diversity of personal laws “but at the same time ensure that personal laws do not contradict fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India”.
“I reiterate the commission’s view that it is essential, at this stage, to deal with laws that are discriminatory rather than providing UCC, which is neither necessary nor desirable at this stage,” Tankha’s letter states.
The DMK also questioned the 22nd Law Commission’s decision to reopen public consultation on UCC after the issue was studied in depth for two years by the 21st Law Commission.
“To the public at large, it seems a response to the call of the ruling BJP party at the Centre to implement the UCC, with one eye on the 2024 General Elections,” DMK MP P. Wilson said in a separate written statement submitted to the parliamentary panel chairperson.
DMK opposed the UCC on the ground that it desecrates a holy sacrament like marriage. A union between believers, it said, should be within the domain of religious institutions while civil codes can be applied to atheists or interreligious marriages, as is already the case of the Special Marriage Act, 1954.
One set of personal laws, Wilson said, cannot be applied with “brute force to all religions, sub sects and denominations, else it will destroy their uniqueness and diversity”.
Sushil Kumar Modi told ThePrint that Monday’s meeting was just to make the members aware of the subject.
“It was an introductory meeting”, he said, adding that the Law Commission of India told the panel that so far, they have got response from 19 lakh people to their draft.
(Edited by Uttara Ramaswamy)
Also Read: Uniform Civil Code is as old as British rule. It can help in better implementation of law