UCC Row Deepens: Widespread Pushback Mounts from Religious Minorities, Tribal Communities

New Delhi, Delhi — The Union Government's renewed impetus for a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) has ignited a fierce nationwide debate, drawing sharp condemnation and significant pushback from an array of stakeholders across India.

With the 22nd Law Commission of India actively soliciting public and institutional views, the proposal, a long-standing core tenet of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party's (BJP) agenda, is encountering formidable resistance from major religious minority organisations and tribal communities who fear an erosion of their distinct identities and customary laws.

Key points

* The 22nd Law Commission's recent call for public consultations on the UCC has triggered widespread discussion and dissent across India.

* Major religious minority groups, primarily Muslim organisations, have vehemently rejected the proposal, citing threats to their constitutional right to religious freedom and the preservation of Sharia-based personal laws.

* Tribal communities, particularly in the North-Eastern states and central India, have voiced serious concerns, fearing the dilution of their deeply ingrained customary laws and unique cultural practices.

* Legal experts and women's rights advocates remain divided, with some championing UCC for genuine gender justice and others cautioning against its potential to impose uniformity at the expense of India's inherent diversity.

* Opposition parties have largely condemned the move, accusing the government of attempting to polarise the electorate and divert attention from pressing economic issues ahead of the 2024 general elections.

The Law Commission's re-examination of the UCC, following an earlier consultation paper in 2018 which stated that a UCC "is neither necessary nor desirable at this stage," has injected a fresh sense of urgency and contention into the national discourse.

The current commission, under the chairmanship of Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi (Retd.), has extended the deadline for submissions multiple times, indicating the sheer volume and complexity of the feedback received from a diverse cross-section of Indian society.

By its latest count, over 1.9 crore submissions have been registered, underscoring the depth of public engagement and, critically, the magnitude of the opposing viewpoints.

Leading the charge against the proposed UCC are prominent Muslim bodies.

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), a key representative organisation, has categorically rejected the move, terming it "unconstitutional and anti-minority." Maulana Khalid Saifullah Rahmani, President of the AIMPLB, stated in a recent press conference, "India is a pluralistic nation with a rich tapestry of religions, cultures, and traditions.

The Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to practice their religion, which includes adherence to their respective personal laws.

Imposing a uniform code would be a direct assault on this fundamental right and would threaten the very fabric of our diverse society." The Board argues that Muslim personal law is divinely ordained and cannot be altered by legislative fiat, asserting that codifying it into a UCC would violate Article 25 of the Constitution, which ensures freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion.

Beyond the Muslim community, tribal groups across India are expressing profound apprehension.

The North-Eastern states, home to hundreds of distinct tribal communities with unique customary laws governing marriage, inheritance, and land ownership, are particularly vocal.

Groups like the Naga Hoho in Nagaland, the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council in Meghalaya, and the Jharkhand Adivasi Sangharsh Morcha have emphatically stated that a UCC would dismantle their age-old social structures and cultural heritage. "Our customary laws are intrinsically linked to our identity, our land, and our way of life," said Niketu Iralu, a respected Naga elder and community leader. "These are not mere regulations but reflections of centuries of our unique social evolution.

To bring them under a uniform code is to erase us, to deny our very existence as distinct peoples within the Indian Union." Many tribal communities enjoy special protections under the Fifth and Sixth Schedules of the Constitution, which they fear could be undermined by a sweeping UCC.

Data from the 2011 Census indicates Scheduled Tribes constitute 8.6% of India's total population, numbering over 104 million, highlighting the vast segment of society whose distinct legal frameworks stand potentially impacted.

The debate also sees a complex interplay of perspectives from women's rights advocates and legal scholars.

While some feminists view UCC as a crucial step towards achieving gender justice, particularly by addressing disparities within existing personal laws regarding inheritance, divorce, and maintenance, others express caution.

Vrinda Grover, a senior advocate and human rights activist, observed, "While the stated goal of gender justice is laudable, the implementation of a UCC must not come at the cost of religious and cultural autonomy, nor should it lead to a regression for women under certain personal laws where they currently enjoy better rights.

The focus should be on reforming discriminatory aspects within all personal laws, rather than a blanket imposition that may inadvertently disenfranchise specific groups or be used as a tool for majoritarianism." Conversely, those supporting a UCC for gender equality, like Ms.

Kavita Krishnan, a prominent activist, argue that "gender justice should not be held hostage to religious personal laws.

Equality before the law is a constitutional mandate, and a UCC can be an instrument to ensure this for all women, irrespective of their faith."

Politically, the UCC push has drawn expected lines of division.

Opposition parties have largely coalesced in criticising the government's timing and motives.

Mallikarjun Kharge, President of the Indian National Congress, remarked, "The BJP consistently brings up the UCC whenever elections are around the corner.

This is a clear attempt to polarise the electorate and deflect attention from its governance failures and the economic hardships faced by ordinary citizens." Regional parties, especially those with strong minority or tribal voter bases like the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) in Tamil Nadu and the Trinamool Congress (TMC) in West Bengal, have also voiced strong opposition, emphasising India's federal structure and diverse cultural mosaic.

Background

The concept of a Uniform Civil Code is enshrined in Article 44 of the Indian Constitution, which states, "The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a Uniform Civil Code throughout the territory of India." This Directive Principle of State Policy, however, is not justiciable, meaning it cannot be enforced by courts.

The debate around UCC dates back to the Constituent Assembly debates, where strong arguments were made both for and against its immediate implementation, ultimately leading to its inclusion as a directive principle rather than a fundamental right.

Historically, India has seen the codification of Hindu personal laws into the Hindu Code Bill in the 1950s, covering marriage, divorce, succession, and adoption for Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs.

However, Muslim, Christian, and Parsi communities continue to be governed by their respective personal laws, such as the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872, and the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936.

Over the decades, the Supreme Court of India has, in various landmark judgments like the Shah Bano case (1985), Sarla Mudgal case (1995), and John Vallamattom case (2003), expressed its desire for the government to take steps towards implementing a UCC, citing concerns about gender justice and national integration.

The BJP has consistently included the UCC in its election manifestos, alongside the abrogation of Article 370 (achieved in 2019) and the construction of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya (underway).

What it means

The potential implementation of a UCC would mark a significant jurisprudential and social shift in India.

It would replace the existing mosaic of religion-specific personal laws with a common set of rules governing matters like marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption, and maintenance for all citizens, irrespective of their religious affiliation.

For supporters, this represents a move towards greater equality, particularly for women, by eliminating discriminatory practices prevalent in some personal laws.

It is also seen as a step towards national integration, fostering a common legal identity.

However, for opponents, especially minority and tribal communities, it signifies an attack on their religious and cultural autonomy, threatening the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom.

They argue that uniformity should not override diversity, and that the state should not interfere in matters deeply personal and religiously sanctioned.

The move, if enacted without broad consensus, could lead to significant social fragmentation, protests, and a protracted period of legal challenges and social adjustment.

It would also test the limits of India's secular and pluralistic ethos.

Reactions

Reactions to the UCC push have been swift and multifaceted.

Beyond the formal submissions to the Law Commission, public demonstrations and rallies have been organised by various groups.

Minority organisations have held strategy meetings, issuing joint statements condemning the proposal.

Social media is abuzz with heated debates, reflecting the deep divisions within society.

The political opposition has intensified its critique, using the UCC as a rallying point against the government.

While some regional parties like the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) have expressed conditional support, stating that a UCC should be consensus-based, the broad opposition front remains firmly against the government's unilateral push.

Even within the ruling coalition, some allies, particularly those with significant tribal populations in their states, are reportedly expressing unease, albeit not publicly.

Internationally, human rights observers are likely to watch the developments closely, particularly concerning the rights of minorities and indigenous populations.

Domestically, public discourse is increasingly polarised, with media debates often becoming contentious battlegrounds for competing ideologies.

What happens next

The immediate next step is for the 22nd Law Commission to analyse the voluminous submissions and prepare its report.

This report is expected to outline the Commission's recommendations on the feasibility and desirability of a UCC, potentially suggesting a framework or principles for its implementation.

Once the report is submitted, the Union Government will decide on its course of action.

Should it choose to proceed, a draft UCC Bill would be prepared and introduced in Parliament.

Given the BJP's majority in the Lok Sabha, its passage there might be relatively straightforward, but it would face significant hurdles and debates in the Rajya Sabha, where the government does not always command a clear majority, and from the united opposition.

Regardless of parliamentary passage, any UCC legislation is almost certainly going to be challenged in the Supreme Court on grounds of constitutional validity, particularly concerning Articles 14 (equality before law), 15 (prohibition of discrimination), 25 (freedom of religion), and 26 (freedom to manage religious affairs).

This would initiate another long and complex legal battle, shaping the future of personal laws in India for decades to come.

The issue is also poised to be a major electoral plank in the run-up to the 2024 general elections, further politicising an already sensitive subject.