Uniform Civil Code (UCC) and Personal Laws
Constitutional Mandate for UCC (Article 44)
Article 44 of the Constitution of India states:
"The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India."
Meaning:
The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) refers to a common set of civil laws applicable to all citizens of India, regardless of religion, caste, or tribe, especially in matters like marriage, divorce, inheritance, and adoption.
Position under the Constitution:
- Article 44 is part of the Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV).
- It is not enforceable by any court, but it lays down an important constitutional goal.
- It aims to promote national integration, gender justice, and equality.
Judicial Observations:
- In Shah Bano case (1985), the Supreme Court observed that a UCC is essential for national integration and criticized the lack of progress in implementing Article 44.
- In Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India (1995), the Court reaffirmed the need for a UCC to prevent misuse of personal laws.
Debates and Challenges regarding UCC
Support for UCC:
- Equality: It seeks to ensure equal rights for all citizens, especially women, across religions.
- Secularism: A uniform law upholds the secular nature of the Constitution.
- Simplification: It will streamline complex religious personal laws and reduce ambiguity in civil cases.
Challenges and Opposition:
- Religious Freedom (Article 25): Critics argue UCC may infringe on the right to freely practice religion.
- Plurality of Laws: India is home to diverse religious and tribal customs that have existed for centuries.
- Trust Deficit: Minority communities view UCC as a tool of cultural assimilation, not integration.
Political Sensitivity:
The implementation of UCC is often seen as a politically charged issue and has rarely found consensus among different political and social groups.
Illustrative Example:
Example 1. A Muslim man marries under Muslim Personal Law but converts to Hinduism to take a second wife. Can UCC prevent such practices?
Answer:
Yes. A UCC would provide a uniform rule for all citizens, making practices like conversion for the sole purpose of remarriage illegal and punishable under civil law, as held in Sarla Mudgal case.
Impact of Reforms on Personal Laws
Progressive Legal Reforms:
- Hindu Code Bills (1955–56): Reformed Hindu marriage, succession, adoption, and guardianship laws.
- Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986: Passed after the Shah Bano judgment to preserve Islamic law on maintenance.
- Triple Talaq Ban (2019): Declared instant triple talaq unconstitutional and criminalized the practice.
Incremental Reforms vs. UCC:
India has taken a path of piecemeal reform of personal laws within communities rather than adopting a full UCC.
Uniformity Achieved Through:
- Special Marriage Act, 1954 – provides a secular alternative for civil marriage.
- Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 – applies uniform standards for adoption across all religions.
Illustrative Example:
Example 2. A Christian woman wants equal inheritance rights with her brother under Christian personal law. Can legal reform achieve this without UCC?
Answer:
Yes. As seen in the Mary Roy case, the Supreme Court upheld equal inheritance rights for Christian women. Such reforms can be brought about without invoking UCC, by judicial or legislative intervention within personal laws.
Succession Rights and Gender Justice
Impact of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005
The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 brought a revolutionary change in Hindu personal law by granting equal coparcenary rights to daughters in ancestral property, thereby promoting gender justice and equality.
Key Provisions:
- Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was amended.
- Daughters became coparceners by birth in the same manner as sons.
- They gained the right to demand partition, manage joint family property, and dispose of their share by will.
Judicial Interpretation:
- In Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020), the Supreme Court held that the 2005 amendment has retrospective effect; daughters have coparcenary rights by birth, irrespective of whether the father was alive on the date of the amendment.
- Earlier in Prakash v. Phulavati (2016), it was held that the father must be alive on 9th September 2005 for the daughter to claim such rights. This position was overruled in Vineeta Sharma case.
Implications:
- Promotes the constitutional principle of equality under Article 14.
- Helps women in rural and urban settings claim their rightful inheritance.
- Eliminates the notion of male-only lineage in property succession.
Illustrative Example:
Example 1. Radha's father died in 2002, but the property remained undivided. Can Radha claim her share after 2005?
Answer:
Yes. As per Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, the daughter acquires coparcenary rights by birth. The father’s death before 2005 does not take away her rights in undivided ancestral property.
Ongoing Debates on Inheritance Rights
Despite legal reforms, inequalities and ambiguities persist in inheritance rights, especially across different religious communities in India.
Challenges:
- Muslim Personal Law: Inheritance under Shariat law gives daughters a share, but usually half that of sons, leading to gender bias.
- Christian and Parsi laws still have remnants of patriarchal norms, despite some judicial reforms.
- Customary practices in tribal areas exclude women entirely from inheritance.
Demand for Uniformity:
- There is growing demand for gender-neutral and religion-neutral inheritance laws.
- Legal scholars and activists call for the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) to address inconsistencies.
- Awareness and access to legal aid remain a barrier for many women to exercise their rights.
Recent Developments:
- Law Commission Reports have supported codification of uniform inheritance rights while respecting religious freedom.
- Court decisions are increasingly using constitutional morality as a guide in interpreting personal laws.
Illustrative Example:
Example 2. A tribal woman is denied inheritance under customary law. Can she challenge it?
Answer:
Yes. In Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar (1996), although the Supreme Court upheld tribal customs, later rulings and public interest litigations have sought to strike down such exclusionary practices as violative of Article 14 (equality) and Article 15 (non-discrimination).
Live-in Relationships and Recognition
Legal Status of Live-in Relationships
Live-in relationships refer to an arrangement where an unmarried couple lives together in a relationship resembling marriage without legally marrying. Indian law does not expressly define live-in relationships, but courts have recognized them to protect the rights of individuals involved.
Judicial Recognition:
- In Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation (1978), the Supreme Court upheld a 50-year live-in relationship as valid marriage.
- In Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013), the Supreme Court laid down five categories of relationships that may qualify as live-in under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Legal Position:
- Live-in relationships are not illegal under Indian law.
- They are considered valid for protection under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 if the relationship is “in the nature of marriage”.
- Such relationships do not create automatic rights of inheritance unless declared as marriage under law.
Factors to determine legitimacy:
- Duration of the relationship
- Shared household
- Pooling of resources and financial arrangements
- Socialization in public as spouses
- Intention and conduct of the parties
Illustrative Example:
Example 1. A man and woman have been living together for 8 years, have a child, and are known socially as husband and wife. Is this relationship legally valid?
Answer:
Yes. If a couple lives together for a long time and fulfills characteristics of a conjugal relationship, courts may presume it as marriage for certain legal purposes (e.g., legitimacy of children and protection under DV Act).
Maintenance and other Rights in Live-in Relationships
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 grants maintenance and protection rights to women in a relationship “in the nature of marriage.”
Key Rights Recognized:
- Right to maintenance: A woman in a live-in relationship can claim monthly maintenance if she proves dependency and domestic relationship.
- Right to shared household: She has the right to reside in the shared household under Section 17 of the DV Act.
- Right to protection from abuse: Protection orders can be granted against harassment, physical or mental violence.
Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC:
- If a live-in relationship amounts to a marriage under facts, maintenance may be awarded under Section 125 of CrPC.
Children's Rights:
- Children born from live-in relationships are considered legitimate under Indian law.
- They have inheritance rights in self-acquired property of parents but not necessarily in ancestral property unless proved to be a valid marriage.
Illustrative Example:
Example 2. Can a woman claim maintenance if her partner leaves her after 5 years of live-in relationship without marriage?
Answer:
Yes. If the relationship had characteristics of marriage (shared household, emotional dependence, economic reliance), she may claim maintenance under Section 20 of the Domestic Violence Act.