Uniform Civil Code – as it does – has reared its head again. Every few years, the proposed UCC makes its way back into the news when revived as a political plank. This time, with state assembly elections in the offing and the Lok Sabha elections next year, it was perhaps inevitable that the spectre of UCC would be back in our lives. However, rather than just a media discussion, it is the Law Commission’s soliciting of opinions on the UCC that has re-awakened this discussion. There is a concern that the Law Commission’s move is an attempt to overturn the 21st Law Commission’s stand in 2018 that a UCC “is neither necessary nor desirable at this stage.” The latest notification says that “Since more than three years have lapsed from the date of issuance of the said consultation paper, bearing in mind the relevance and importance of the subject and also the various court orders on the subject, the 22nd Law Commission considered it expedient to deliberate afresh over the subject.”

The previous Law Commission report had argued that “efforts have to be made to reconcile our diversity with universal and indisputable arguments on human rights.” In five years, zero recommendations of this report have been implemented. The previous report also spoke about guaranteeing the freedom of faith while not compromising equality, a sentiment that remains completely ignored in the current government’s dispensation.

Uniform Civil Code – as it does – has reared its head again. Every few years, the proposed UCC makes its way back into the news when revived as a political plank. This time, with state assembly elections in the offing and the Lok Sabha elections next year, it was perhaps inevitable that the spectre of UCC would be back in our lives. However, rather than just a media discussion, it is the Law Commission’s soliciting of opinions on the UCC that has re-awakened this discussion. There is a concern that the Law Commission’s move is an attempt to overturn the 21st Law Commission’s stand in 2018 that a UCC “is neither necessary nor desirable at this stage.” The latest notification says that “Since more than three years have lapsed from the date of issuance of the said consultation paper, bearing in mind the relevance and importance of the subject and also the various court orders on the subject, the 22nd Law Commission considered it expedient to deliberate afresh over the subject.”

The previous Law Commission report had argued that “efforts have to be made to reconcile our diversity with universal and indisputable arguments on human rights.” In five years, zero recommendations of this report have been implemented. The previous report also spoke about guaranteeing the freedom of faith while not compromising equality, a sentiment that remains completely ignored in the current government’s dispensation.

Proponents of the UCC always argue that it is in essence a Constitutional demand and therefore, opponents of UCC are questioning the Constitution itself. However, as reputed lawyer and co-founder, Majlis, recently said in an interview she gave to The Wire: “There are many directive principles of state policy and Article 44 is just one of them. But the issue is unnecessarily politicised. What the constitution framers thought about this issue is not clear as personal laws are also state subjects and the states can also make laws for the same.”

While Articles 14-24 outlining fundamental rights advocate individual rights to equality and freedom, Articles 25-30 talk about the protection of religious freedom and education and cultural rights of minorities. This is a fundamental and delicate balance that the Constitution strikes. Even as the Constitution overwhelmingly imagined an individual subject whose rights had to be defended and one who could make a claim to have his or her rights protected, it also laid out a clear space for communities and marginalized groups to stake claim to the same Constitution. This was very clear in the recent movements that have taken place, such as the anti-CAA-NRC movement, where the Constitution was a highly visible symbol used by minorities and oppressed groups to establish their claim to citizenship and consequent rights. Therefore, the Constitution both in letter and spirit has never been opposed to religious freedom, which includes personal laws, as long as they do not violate human rights.

Nowhere does this produce the need for a ‘uniform’ civil code.

While the UCC has clearly always been pushed as a majoritarian plank, in essence, as a dog-whistle against Muslim personal law, it is something that will in practice, affect a whole host of communities and groups. Representatives of more than 30 tribal organisations gathered in Ranchi on 25th June 2023 to discuss the UCC which they fear will dilute the tribal customary laws. Therefore, the imposition of a unilateral, hegemonic and singular vision of Indian society and its practices must also be resisted wholly, and by engaging with all sections of society.

In its early days, UCC was seen with some hope by many sections of the feminist movement, who saw it as a beacon of gender justice. Post the 1990s, however, with the explicit growth of Hindutva majoritarianism, the demolition of the Babri Masjid and the increasing securitization of minority communities, it became clear to most that this hegemonic project was no friend of women. Additionally, with the deepening of diversity among the women’s movement as Dalit, Muslim, Adivasi and other women’s groups began to challenge the singular discourse of womanhood, it became clear that respecting religious freedom and faith is a very important aspect of justice. There is much greater scepticism towards any attempts to implement UCC even among the women’s movement. However, there are multiple demands to reform personal laws in accordance with gender justice. Any reform, however, must be done with consultation and should emerge within the communities rather than being implemented top-down, such as the triple talaq bill, which has in its afterlife, only led to the abandonment of women by their husbands out of fear of being sent to jail – all in the name of putting an end to a minuscule problem that could have been addressed more holistically in other ways.

UCC must be rejected point-blank, unitedly, and with a comprehensive critique of both its overt and its covert ideological aspects. In a country with an immense diversity of practice and faith, there should be no space for such a bill. This vision is falsely being carried out in the name of the founding fathers and mothers of the Constitution, who held far more complex and diverse views on the methods needed to cure the ills of Indian society than a blanket imposition of ‘uniformity’.