Since 1985, while giving judgements in various cases, c´ff Supreme Court has passed many strictures pertaining to Common Civil Code, following judgment and directives to the Law Commission are good enough to understand the spirit with which the Judiciary is pushing for this Constitutional provision enshrined in the Directive Principles of State Policy
LILY THOMAS VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(2000) 6 SCC 224
Para 65. Besides deciding the question of law regarding the interpretation of Section 494 IPC, one of the Hon’ble Judges (Kuldip Singh, J.) after referring to the observations made by this Court in Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum [(1985) 2 SCC 556] requested the Government of India through the Prime Minister of the country to have a fresh look at Article 44 of the Constitution of India and “endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India” (SCC p. 651, para 37). In that behalf direction was issued to the Government of India, Secretary, Ministry of Law & Justice to file an affidavit of a responsible officer indicating therein the steps taken and efforts made towards securing a uniform civil code for the citizens of India. On the question of a uniform civil code R.M. Sahai, J. the other Hon’ble Judge constituting the Bench suggested some measures which could be undertaken by the Government to check the abuse of religion by unscrupulous persons, who under the cloak of conversion were found to be otherwise guilty of polygamy. It was observed that: [Sarla Mudgal, President, Kalyani v. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 635 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 569] (SCC p. 652, para 45) “Freedom of religion is the core of our culture. Even the slightest deviation shakes the social fibre.” It was further remarked that: [Sarla Mudgal, President, Kalyani v. Union of India) “The Government would be well advised to entrust the responsibility to the Law Commission which may in consultation with Minorities Commission examine the matter and bring about a comprehensive legislation in keeping with modern-day concept of human rights for women.”
JOHN VALLAMATTOM VS. UNION OF INDIA
[(2003) 6 SCC 611]
Para 44. Before I part with the case, I would like to state that Article 44 provides that the State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India. The aforesaid provision is based on the premise that there is no necessary connection between religious and personal law in a civilized society. Article 25 of the Constitution confers freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion. The aforesaid two provisions viz. Articles 25 and 44 show that the former guarantees religious freedom whereas the latter divests religion from social relations and personal law. It is no matter of doubt that marriage, succession and the like matters of a secular character cannot be brought within the guarantee enshrined under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. Any legislation which brings succession and the like matters of secular character within the ambit of Articles 25 and 26 is a suspect legislation, although it is doubtful whether the American doctrine of suspect legislation is followed in this country. In Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India [(1995) 3 SCC 635 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 569] it was held that marriage, succession and like matters of secular character cannot be brought within the guarantee enshrined under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. It is a matter of regret that Article 44 of the Constitution has not been given effect to. Parliament is still to step in for framing a common civil code in the country. A common civil code will help the cause of national integration by removing the contradictions based on ideologies.
JOSE PAULO COUTINHO VS. MARIA LUIZA VALENTINA PEREIRA [(2019) SCC ONLINE SC 1190
Para 23. It is interesting to note that whereas the founders of the Constitution in Article 44 in Part IV dealing with the principles of directive policy had hoped and expected that the State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a Uniform Civil Code throughout the territories of India, till date no action has been taken in this regard. Though Hindu laws were codified in the year 1956 there has been no attempt to frame a Uniform Civil code applicable to all citizens of the country despite exhortations of this court in the case of Mohd. Ahmed Khan Vs. Shah Bano and Sarla Mudgal Vs. Union of India.
Para 24. However, Goa is a shining example of an Indian State which has a uniform civil code applicable to all, regardless of religion except while protecting certain limited rights. It would also not be out of place to mention that with effect from 22.12.2016 certain portions of the Portuguese Civil Code have been repealed and replaced by the Goa Succession, Special Notaries and Inventory Proceedings Act, 2012 which, by and large, is in line with the Portuguese Civil Code. The salient features with regard to family properties are that a married couple jointly holds the ownership of all the assets owned before marriage or acquired after marriage by each spouse. Therefore, in case of divorce, each spouse is entitled to half share of the assets. The law, however, permits pre-nuptial agreements which may have a different system of division of assets. Another important aspect, as pointed out earlier, is that at least half of the property has to pass to the legal heirs as legitime. This, in some ways, is akin to the concept of ‘coparcenary’ in Hindu law. However, as far as Goa is concerned, this legitime will also apply to the self-acquired properties. Muslim men whose marriages are registered in Goa cannot practice polygamy. Further, even for followers of Islam there is no provision for verbal divorce.
DIRECTION TO THE LAW COMMISSION TO
FORMULATE A DRAFT
GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD. VS. ESSAR POWER LTD., (2016) 9 SCC 103
Para 41. We are, thus, of the view that in the first instance the Law Commission may look into the matter with the involvement of all the stakeholders.
Par 43. The questions which may be required to be examined by the Law Commission are:
43.1. Whether any changes in the statutory framework constituting various tribunals with regard to persons appointed, manner of appointment, duration of appointment, etc. is necessary in the light of the judgment of this Court in Madras Bar Assn. [Madras Bar Assn. v. Union of India, (2014) 10 SCC 1] or on any other consideration from the point of view of strengthening the rule of law?
43.2. Whether it is permissible and advisable to provide appeals routinely to this Court only on a question of law or substantial question of law which is not of national or public importance without affecting the constitutional role assigned to the Supreme Court having regard to the desirability of decision being rendered within reasonable time?
43.3. Whether direct statutory appeals to the Supreme Court bypassing the High Courts from the orders of Tribunal affects access to justice to litigants in remote areas of the country?
43.4. Whether it is desirable to exclude jurisdiction of all courts in the absence of equally effective alternative mechanism for access to justice at grass root level as has been done in provisions of the TDSAT Act (Sections 14 and 15).
43.5. Any other incidental or connected issue which may be considered appropriate.
Para 44. We request the Law Commission to give its report as far as possible within one year. Thereafter the matter may be examined by the authorities concerned.
