India Tomorrow
NEW DELHI—The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) on Wednesday registered its objections to the 22nd Law Commission of India notice that had solicited “the views and ideas on uniform civil code” from various stakeholders.
The board represents all schools of Islamic thought in India.
The Muslim panel raised its objections in the form of a representation submitted before the Commission.
In a candid manner, the board said that “majoritarian morality must not supersede personal laws, religious freedom, and minority rights in the name of a code which remains an enigma.”
The panel pointed out the contents of the Law Commission’s notice is “vague, too general and unclear.”
It reminded the Commission that the UCC is a “purely legal issue” but it has also been “fodder for politics and consumption for media-driven propaganda.”
The board recalled that the 21st Law Commission had concluded that “the uniform civil code is neither necessary nor desirable.”
It expressed surprise that why, in such a short time, “the successive commission is seeking public opinion on the same issue without there being a blueprint as to what the commission intends to do.”
Stating that “the terms for the suggestions to be invited are missing,” in the commission’s notice, the panel remarked, “It appears that such a large issue has been floated in the public domain to seek a referendum as to whether the reaction of the general public also reaches the Commission in either equally vague terms or in a ‘yes’, or ‘no’”.
Informing the Commission about why the board objects to UCC proposals, the panel’s recommendation pointed out, “…the fundamental book of Muslims, being the Holy Quran, Sunnah and fiqh (Islamic Law) in the form of religious texts, which are matters of Articles 25 and 26, mandate its believers to follow the injunctions as prescribed therein. The followers of Islam find themselves bound by those injunctions and the same are non-negotiable terms. Personal relationship of Muslims, guided by their personal laws, is directly derived from the Holy Quran and Sunnah (Islamic Laws) and this aspect is linked with their identity. Muslims in India will not be agreeable to lose this identity of which there is space within the constitutional framework of our country. National integrity, safety and security and fraternity is best preserved and maintained if we maintain the diversity of our country by permitting minorities and tribal communities to be governed by their own personal laws.”
The representation discussed in details the country’s “pluralistic principle, vast diversity and multi-culturalism.” It also discussed the issues of “secularism, gender justice & principles of equality, national integration and Supreme Court observations” on the issue.
“The prevalence of multiple personal laws by different communities is consistent with religio-cultural rights of the members of Indian communities flowing from conjoint reading of Articles 25, 26 and 29 of the Constitution. The application of such laws as per the religio-cultural norms of different communities/tribes should be celebrated as the shining example of a robust democracy in our beloved country,” the board’s recommendations highlighted.
The panel suggested that “the religious principles and customary and tribal exemptions that have been reflected in the existing statutes show the inalienable position of the dominant religious group and customs that cannot be dispensed with in such codes.”
The board in its recommendations noted that “the existing family laws – both general and personal – are not truly uniform, even existing codified community-based laws are no uniform.”
It also pointed out that even “SMA(Special Marriage Act), the closest and continuing model of a uniform family law in India, is not ‘uniform’”.
“SMA, not only has been designed as per the majoritarian morality but provides exemptions for customary laws,” the Muslim panel highlighted.
Analysing the SMA, the board said the provisions regarding succession, adoption and maintenance in the SMA are based on “uncodified customs of Hindus.”
The board said that “the most crucial document of our nation, the Constitution of India, is itself not uniform in nature, prudently and with the intention to keep the country united. Different treatment, accommodation, adjustment is the nature of our Constitution. Different territories of the nation have been given different treatments. Different communities have been made entitled to different rights. Different religions have been given different accommodations.”
It said that “the mere projection of ‘uniformity’ is not a valid ground for uprooting established systems of law governing personal matters of different religious communities when even the established general and supposedly uniform laws are not entirely uniform in nature.”
“The Goa Civil Code is packed with diversity; even the Constitution of India has different provisions for different classes of persons and also for different regions. Even the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply uniformly in the entire territory of India,” the Muslim board noted.
It further said, “Even the Hindu Marriage Act, specifically framed to regulate the personal laws of one community, does not apply uniformly on all the Hindus in India. The Special Marriage Act takes the parties to Hindu Succession Act and dilutes customary laws qua prohibited degrees of marriage. These examples demonstrate just the tip of the iceberg.”
It strongly said that “majoritarian morality must not supersede personal laws, religious freedom, and minority rights in the name of a code which remains an enigma.”
