The main goal of the Constitution’s architects was to work towards a common civil code for all citizens in the future in a gradual and consensual manner. The political hesitation and inability to call a spade a spade, on the other hand, has lingered on this problem for a long time. For more than four decades, the Supreme Court and several High Courts have advised governments to enact a UCC. In legal terms, the implementation of UCC and the question of gender justice are inextricably linked. The primary issue is to give actual justice, and fair treatment for women is restricted in many current issues such as secularism, freedom, religion, and so on. Gender justice must be labelled as a separate issue.
Despite the fact that Dr. B.R. Ambedkar was a strong advocate of the Uniform Civil Code, he was only able to get it passed as a Directive Principle due to opposition from the members. This directive guideline aims to establish more equality for all citizens through time rather than all at once. This massive responsibility has been assigned to the government. However, until recently, no meaningful efforts have been done by any government. During the Shah Bano case[1] in 1985, it became one of the most contentious issues in contemporary politics. In the Shah Bano Begum case, the Supreme Court invoked section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code and held that the section should apply to everyone, regardless of religion, caste, or faith. As a result, after a divorce, all Muslim women are entitled to maintenance.
This case also served as a watershed moment in the country’s implementation of the “Uniform Civil Code.” The Supreme Court held in the Daniel Latifi case[2] that a Muslim divorced woman is entitled to maintenance until she remarries. The topic of Triple Talaq was raised in the case of Shayra Bano[3], and the Supreme Court ruled that the husband’s proclamation of instant triple talaq was void. According to the Supreme Court in Mary Roy v. State of Kerala[4] a Syrian Christian woman got a hand and a portion in her ancestral property. The Supreme Court enlarged the scope of Hindu women’s equal share and rights in the Undivided Hindu Family property in the case of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma[5].
The infamous ‘Sabarimala Judgement’ overturned the age-old precedent of not allowing menstruation Hindu women to attend the temple because the deity’s celibacy may be jeopardised. The court ignored the reality as an infringement on our constitutional goals, and now women have the right to enter the Temple faithfully. These are a few landmark judgments which show that UCC must be adopted by the Indian Constitution. There will be no gender prejudices in our sovereign democratic republican country with the application of healthy and robust personal laws, as well as equality that embraces both men and women, encouraging gender parity. Special privileges or politicisation of issues based on gender or religion will not be tolerated.
The fact that their homeland has weighed humanity, equality, and modesty on the same scale would excite and inspire the younger generation and pupils. We may also be able to dispel prejudices about every culture and faith by introducing UCC. Under one distinct legislation, everyone would be able to enjoy the same rights as those described. As a result, the Constitutional objectives of Unity, Integrity, and Fraternity will be more fully realised. At present, Goa is the only Indian state with a unified civil code. The Goa Family Law is a series of civil laws that were originally part of the Portuguese Civil Code. Following the liberation of Goa in 1961, the Indian state repealed all colonial laws and applied central laws to the region, with the exception of the Family Laws, which were retained because all Goan communities wanted them.
Aishwarya Says:
I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.
If you are interested in participating in the same, do let me know.
Do follow me on Facebook, Twitter Youtube and Instagram.
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at adv.aishwaryasandeep@gmail.com
We also have a Facebook Group Restarter Moms for Mothers or Women who would like to rejoin their careers post a career break or women who are enterpreneurs
[1] Mohd. Ahmed Khan vs. Shah Bano Begum, 1985 AIR 945.
[2] Danial Latifi & Anr vs. Union of India, 2001 SC SCC 740.
[3] Shayara Bano vs. Union of India, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 963.
[4] Mrs. Mary Roy vs. State of Kerala, AIR 1986 1011.
[5] Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, (2020) 9 SCC 1.