Erosion Of Customary Heritage Or Equality Before Law: The Impenetrable Ucc Dilemma Of The North-East

Mitali Tikyani, I.L.S. Law College, Pune

Rituraj Tripathi, I.L.S. Law College, Pune

ABSTRACT

The high-voltage discussion around introducing the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) has hit the streets yet again, following recent legislative strides in the infamous direction. The idea of UCC revolved around the concept of “homogeneity in-laws” governing the population of a certain nation-state. Prima facie it appears to be a personification of Equality before the law. However, UCC is principally complex when considering the cultural and demographic diversity of the historically living Indian population. While cultural universality may prevail while formulating criminal and civil laws, modern legal thought advocates that relativism should be protected when the law enters a person’s house. The entire idea of UCC, as highly backed by the current regime, can easily be thought of as a double-edged sword. While on one side it provides relevance and legitimacy to certain constitutional principles laid down by the forefathers, many are of the opinion that it is bound to give rise to ethnocentrism.

The recent developments come from the North-Indian state of Uttarakhand where the state government constituted a UCC draft panel of 5 members under the chairmanship of former Supreme Court judge Ranjana Prakash Desai to toy with the idea of introducing a Uniform Civil Code for the state, in furtherance of giving effect to a significant poll promise. However, there is a long-standing debate regarding the same dating back to the preindependence era. While formulating the constitution of India, UCC became a point of contention for the fundamental rights sub-committee. While the consensus was to add provisions giving effect to the UCC in the non-justiciable chamber of rights, people including M.R Masani, Hansa Mehta, and Amrit Kaur expressed their dissent with the same. Later on, when Dr. B. R. Ambedkar presented the Draft Constitution to the Constituent Assembly for deliberation on the 4th of November, 1948, the UCC provision found its place in the Directive Principles of State Policy. Following this, another massive debate erupted inside the assembly. Stalwarts like Allahdi Krishnamachari and K.M Munshi took to the affirmative while members like Pocket Sahib Bahadur and Naziruddin Ahmed put forward the negative point of view with regards to the UCC. The issue at the centre of the infamous debate was the legislative overreach affecting the uninterrupted usage of customary and religious practices. Understandably so, as has been witnessed over time immemorial, religious and regional identities have held a rather special place in the lives of the Indian people. While initial and primary resentment towards UCC arrived from the minority groups (linguistic and religious), the majority Hindu committee also did not offer a holistic view on the same. This was very evidently witnessed when Dr. Ambedkar brought forward the controversial Hindu Code Bill, which was seen as an effort towards the ultimate goal of UCC.

India recently celebrated the diamond jubilee of Independence. These years were highly formative in terms of policy evolution, primarily relating to human life and dignity. Multiple legislations and judicial precedents have been passed that directly impact the personal space of people across religions, with the objective of bringing the underprivileged population on par with the rest. However, amidst all this, UCC still stands between a rock and a hard place. For the purpose of this piece, we will look at the primary concerns that UCC poses for the identity and liberty of various tribal communities, which are constitutionally protected. Justice B.S. Chauhan, a former Judge of the Supreme Court, led the 21st Law Commission, which primarily deals with bringing personal laws under the purview of the Constitution. The 22nd Law Commission offered a new perspective on the UCC and solicited opinions from the public and religious organisations on the question of a Uniform Civil Code. Both studies had two distinct opinions; one followed the legal considerations covered under Article 44, while the other followed the aspect of customs practised by numerous religions and Indigenous communities. Secularism, as per the preamble, is what the Constitution's basic framework inherently suggests.