Constitutional Mandate and Arguments for UCC

Article 44 of the Indian Constitution under the Directive Principles of State Policy states: “The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.” This indicates the framers’ vision of a common set of personal laws applicable to all citizens irrespective of religion, race, caste, or gender.

Arguments in Favor of UCC:

• Secularism and Equality: UCC is seen as a step towards true secularism, where all citizens are treated equally before the law, irrespective of religious identity.
• Gender Justice: Personal laws of many religions are seen as discriminatory towards women. A UCC would help eliminate such inequalities, especially in matters of marriage, divorce, inheritance, and adoption.
• National Integration: A single civil code would promote national unity and reduce communal divisions caused by separate personal laws.
• Simplification of Legal System: Multiple personal laws often lead to confusion and contradictory rulings. A uniform code would simplify legal processes and reduce litigation.
• Global Human Rights Norms: A UCC would align India’s personal laws with international human rights standards.

Example: Goa is often cited as a successful example of a state having a Uniform Civil Code since Portuguese Civil Code of 1867 continues to be followed, offering equal rights in matters of marriage, divorce and succession.

Concerns and Objections from Muslim Community

The proposal of a UCC has been a contentious issue, especially among the Muslim community, who view it as a potential threat to religious freedom and identity.

Major Concerns:

• Violation of Article 25: Many argue that implementing UCC would infringe the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion.
• Fear of Majoritarianism: There is apprehension that UCC may lead to imposition of Hindu-centric norms under the guise of uniformity.
• Loss of Cultural Identity: Personal laws are closely tied to religious and cultural practices. A uniform code might undermine centuries-old traditions.
• Lack of Trust: Due to historical marginalization, some minorities distrust the intent behind UCC and perceive it as politically motivated rather than reformative.

Example: The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) has consistently opposed the UCC, arguing that Shariat-based laws are an integral part of their religious identity and cannot be tampered with.

Judicial Pronouncements on UCC

Indian courts have repeatedly stressed the importance of implementing a Uniform Civil Code to promote equality and secularism. Some landmark judgments include:

• Shah Bano Case (Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, 1985):
  The Supreme Court upheld a divorced Muslim woman’s right to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC and strongly advocated for the implementation of UCC to prevent such conflicts.
• Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India (1995):
  The Court held that allowing conversion for polygamy was misuse of religion and emphasized the urgent need for UCC to prevent exploitation of women and uphold national integration.
• John Vallamattom v. Union of India (2003):
  The Court struck down a discriminatory provision in Christian personal law and reiterated that personal laws must not violate principles of equality and secularism.
• Recent Supreme Court Observations (2023–24):
  Several benches have observed that the legislature must take steps towards implementing a UCC while ensuring that it respects diversity and inclusiveness.

Conclusion:

While the courts have supported the concept of UCC for ensuring equality and non-discrimination, they have also stressed that the reform must be carried out through consensus, public awareness, and legislative action rather than judicial imposition.

Triple Talaq Abolition and its Impact

The practice of instant triple talaq (Talaq-e-Biddat) allowed a Muslim husband to unilaterally divorce his wife by pronouncing 'talaq' thrice in one sitting. This practice was often criticized for being arbitrary and discriminatory towards women.

Landmark Judgment:

Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017): The Supreme Court held that Triple Talaq was unconstitutional as it violated Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 21 (Right to Life). The judgment was a major step towards gender justice in Muslim Personal Law.

Legislative Intervention:

The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019: This Act criminalized the practice of instant triple talaq, making it a cognizable and non-bailable offence punishable with up to 3 years imprisonment. It also provides for maintenance and custody rights to the affected woman.

Impact:

• Empowered Muslim women to assert their marital rights without fear of arbitrary divorce.
• Reinforced the idea of due process in matrimonial disputes.
• Received support from women’s rights groups but also triggered opposition from conservative sections citing religious freedom.

Debates on Polygamy and its Legality

Under Muslim Personal Law, a man is permitted to marry up to four wives, provided he treats them equally. However, the issue of polygamy has sparked intense debate on its compatibility with gender justice and constitutional principles.

Arguments in Favor:

• Some Islamic scholars argue that polygamy was allowed in specific historical contexts with conditions of justice and fairness.
• Supporters claim it offers social support for widows and orphans in patriarchal settings.

Arguments Against:

• Violates Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 15 (Prohibition of discrimination).
• Creates emotional and financial insecurity among wives.
• Seen as discriminatory since Muslim women are not permitted multiple husbands.

Judicial Remarks:

In *Javed v. State of Haryana (2003)*, the Supreme Court observed that polygamy is not an integral part of religion and can be regulated in public interest. The Court emphasized that personal laws must evolve with constitutional morality.

Contemporary Demand: Women's organizations have urged for reforms in Muslim personal law to restrict polygamy or make it subject to judicial scrutiny and wife’s consent.

Inheritance Rights and Gender Equality

Islamic inheritance laws (as interpreted under Sunni and Shia schools) assign specific shares to male and female heirs. Generally, a male heir receives double the share of a female counterpart, e.g., a son gets twice the share of a daughter.

Debate and Criticism:

• This differentiation has been criticized as gender-biased, particularly in a modern socio-economic context where women contribute equally.
• It contradicts the spirit of Article 14 (equality before law) and Article 15 (non-discrimination based on gender).

Judicial Standpoint:

While courts have generally respected religious autonomy in matters of inheritance, the broader judicial discourse encourages reforms for ensuring equal property rights, especially when women are financially independent or contributing to family assets.

Recent Developments:

• In certain cases, daughters and widows have successfully challenged arbitrary exclusion from property, invoking constitutional provisions.
• Some progressive Muslim families voluntarily adopt equal distribution of property through wills (wasiyyat) or gifts (hiba).

Conclusion:

Inheritance laws under Muslim Personal Law remain a critical frontier for gender justice. While rooted in scriptural authority, these laws must adapt to modern standards of equality and dignity.

Legal Status of Live-in Relationships under Muslim Law

Under traditional Muslim Personal Law, live-in relationships (where a man and a woman cohabit without formal marriage) are not recognized as valid forms of conjugal union. Islamic jurisprudence emphasizes the sanctity and legality of nikah (marriage contract) as a precondition for lawful cohabitation.

Classical View:

• Living together without nikah is considered zina (fornication), a sinful and punishable act under traditional Islamic law.
• There are no legal rights conferred upon the woman in a live-in relationship under orthodox interpretations.

Contemporary Legal Perspective in India:

Indian courts, while not specifically applying Muslim Personal Law in such cases, have upheld the legality of live-in relationships under broader constitutional and civil principles.

• Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013): The Supreme Court recognized the right of a woman in a live-in relationship to claim protection under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, if the relationship was “in the nature of marriage.”
• Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (2006): The Court affirmed that two consenting adults can live together even without marriage, and it is not illegal.

Implications for Muslim Women:

• Though not recognized religiously, civil remedies like maintenance or protection from abuse are available under secular laws.
• However, issues like inheritance, legitimacy of children, and matrimonial rights remain ambiguous without formal marriage.

Validity of Marriages performed without adhering to traditional norms

For a marriage to be valid under Muslim law, certain essential conditions must be fulfilled. However, deviations from traditional practices raise questions about the marriage’s legal validity and social acceptance.

Essential Requirements of a Valid Muslim Marriage (Nikah):

• Proposal and acceptance (Ijab-o-Qubool) in one sitting.
• Consent of both parties.
• Presence of at least two male witnesses (for Sunni law).
• Offer of dower (mahr).
• No bar of prohibited degrees of relationship.

What If Traditions Are Not Followed?

If certain cultural or customary norms (like grand ceremonies, social rituals) are not followed but the legal essentials are satisfied, the marriage is still valid under law.

However, failure to fulfill religious/legal requirements such as absence of witnesses, lack of consent, or violation of prohibited relationship rules may render the marriage:

• Batil (void): No legal recognition (e.g., marriage with a prohibited relative).
• Fasid (irregular): Can be corrected later (e.g., marriage without witnesses).

Judicial View:

• Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985): Valid marriage is not a precondition to claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
• Payal Sharma v. Nari Niketan (2001): Allahabad High Court ruled that live-in or informal unions among adults cannot be penalized if consensual.

Conclusion:

While Muslim law strictly requires formal procedures for marriage, Indian courts, under secular laws, have shown flexibility to protect rights arising from informal or live-in arrangements. However, to avoid legal complications, adhering to the prescribed formalities of marriage remains strongly advised.