Prime Minister Narendra Modi Questions the Need for Two Different Laws in India during BJP Meeting in Bhopal
In a consultative meeting with BJP party leaders in Bhopal, Prime Minister Narendra Modi expressed his concern over the existence of two different types of laws in one country. The Prime Minister stated, “How can there be two different types of laws in one country…” This statement was made in response to the ongoing debate surrounding the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) and its impact on different religious communities.
The controversy surrounding the UCC stems from the belief that the law unfairly targets Muslim sects. However, the BJP supports argue that bringing everyone under the same law is essential for national unity. Prime Minister Modi countered these claims by stating that the notion of the UCC being used to bring a particular religion into the “national mainstream” is false.
To understand the background of the UCC debate, it is crucial to delve into the history of the proposal. After assuming office in 2014, the Narendra Modi-led BJP government focused on implementing a common civil law. Under the chairmanship of former Supreme Court judge Balbir Singh Chauhan, the 21st Law Commission was constituted in 2016. Prime Minister Narendra Modi personally oversaw the establishment of this commission. After conducting an extensive two-year study, the Law Commission submitted its report in August 2018, stating that a general civil code was neither necessary nor desirable for India at present.
Despite this report, the Central Government did not make any decision regarding the UCC. As a result, the 22nd Law Commission was constituted on February 21, 2020, under the leadership of former Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, Ritu Raj Awasthi. The commission’s tenure is set for three years. In June, the commission issued a public request for input on the General Civil Code, with around 46 lakh people registering their views so far. The discussion around the UCC gained momentum when Prime Minister Narendra Modi stated, “There cannot be two different laws in the same country…” during his visit to Madhya Pradesh, where elections are currently being held.
Contrary to some claims, India does not solely follow two types of laws. In reality, India has various legal procedures, which extend beyond religious laws. Therefore, it would be misleading to oversimplify the issue. The need for a common civil law applies not only to Muslims but also to other ethnic and religious groups.
The Constitution of India addresses the issue of a general civil law under Article 44. This article grants the power to enact laws related to various non-religious social acts, including contracts, property transfers, and financial instruments. These laws are not exclusive to any particular religion. Many races and religions in India follow different types of personal laws.
For instance, Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs adhere to the “Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,” which is different from the practices followed by Muslims under the “Muslim Marriage Act, 1939.” Furthermore, within the Muslim community, there are variations between Shia and Sunni sects regarding divorce proceedings.
The criticism that general civil law will help curb polygamy among Muslims is debunked by the 21st Law Commission’s findings. The commission clarified that polygamy is most prevalent among tribal communities, followed by Buddhists, Jains, Hindus, and Muslims. The North Eastern tribes, who are predominantly Christians, have notably higher rates of polygamy.
Another important point to consider is the existence of different laws in various parts of India. For example, many sections of the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure (CRPC) are not applicable in the state of Nagaland, where tribal customs govern criminal proceedings.
Implementing a common civil law throughout India would require significant changes and adjustments by different religious and ethnic groups. This could potentially lead to confusion and disaffection among the population. The 21st Law Commission’s report emphasized the inadvisability of implementing a common civil code in the current situation.
The notion that the General Civil Code is solely aimed at bringing Muslims under the Indian national mainstream is nothing more than electioneering propaganda. While there may be polls and social media campaigns targeting Muslim opinions during elections, Indian law does not support such claims. Additionally, it is important to note that if the UCC were implemented, it would affect not just Muslims but also individuals from other religions and ethnic groups.
The debate surrounding the Uniform Civil Code in India remains complex and multifaceted. Various factors, including religious practices, cultural diversity, and constitutional considerations, must be taken into account. As the public continues to provide their feedback, it is essential to thoroughly analyze the implications of implementing a common civil law that encompasses all religious communities in India.