A UNIFORM CIVIL CODE OR GENDER

DISCRIMINATION?
The term Uniform Civil Code is talked about in Article 44 of the Constitution of India
under the Directive Principles of State Policy. The Article aims to secure justice by
bringing forward an alternate meaning to the term Secular mentioned in the
Preamble. In the current form of secularism, all religious personal laws are left
untouched, under the presumption that non-interference amounts to equal treatment.
This was the interpretation of secularism by Warren Hastings who said, The laws of
the Koran with respect to the Mahomedans and those of the Shastra with respect to
the Gentoos (Hindus) shall be invariably adhered to. Nevertheless, there are
inequalities within these religious customary laws that violate Article 15 of the
Constitution, making this form of secularism inadequate. However, the UCC form of
secularism promotes Article 14 by embracing equality among equals. Our legislation
has been striving to form a UCC on the same lines of secularism, where they intend to
keep in mind all the minority communities while drafting a singular Civil Code that
draws upon the best customs suitable for the liberal generations ahead.
The custom of merely saying the word Talaq to divorce is a practice that subsists for
Muslim men but not for women. When a Muslim man is unhappy in a marriage, he
can say Talaq thrice in front of a group of people, mostly family members, in order to
divorce his wife. In the case of Muslim women, they do not have this option of Talaq
making dissolution of marriage significantly harder for them. There are many such
customs that are present in favour of men. These customs that turn into laws by
practice are inherently unconstitutional in nature and prevail in the society,
discriminating between citizens based only on their gender. This violates Article 15 of
the Constitution, a Fundamental Right that prohibits any form of gender
discrimination.
The Shariat Act is merely an advisory. The Muslim personal laws remain uncodified
even after the constitutionality of the Act was questioned in 2001, on the grounds that
there were discrepancies and gender discrimination within the religious customs itself.
However, codification does not help as the Hindu laws are codified but the same
loopholes and discriminatory laws are present in it. In the Hindu law of inheritance,
there is a discrimination between men and women where Section 16 of the Hindu

Succession Act says that when a woman dies intestate in the absence of her heirs, her
property will be inherited by her husbands heirs only in the absence of whom it will
go to her own fathers heirs. Whereas this does not apply to a man as Section 15 of the
Act says that in the absence of a mans class I and class II heirs, the property will
devolve to his agnates. This is again violative of Article 15 of the Constitution of
India and shows how there isnt uniformity within the codified laws either.
UCC should not be understood to be against religion, as the very existence of Article
25 in the Constitution is a Fundamental Right that allows every citizen to practice and
propagate any religion of their choice and will protect them even if the legislation
drafts a UCC that is not in favour of their religion. By way of an alternate form of
secularism, prejudices of gender discriminatory laws will be removed by the UCC,
which will aid in treating every gender equally under the eyes of the law. The Goa
Civil Code is a type of UCC sustaining without discriminating on the basis of gender.
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and other framers of our Constitution said that Article 44 should
be actionable only when the Muslim community and other minority communities
come to a consensus that a UCC is necessary. After the issue of Triple Talaq, a large
section of the Muslim community is in dire need of progressive laws. As the
codification of the Hindu Code Bill clearly hasnt removed the gender discriminatory
laws existing within these customs, there is a need for UCC.