The political debate surrounding the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) has once again intensified in Bharat. Following a recent observation by the Supreme Court- made while hearing a matter concerning the rights of Muslim women- stating, “The time has now come to implement the Uniform Civil Code (UCC),” the Chief of the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM), Asaduddin Owaisi, has issued several statements opposing the UCC. He asserted, “Hindu law cannot be imposed upon Muslims under the guise of the UCC,” and further claimed, “In Islam, marriage is merely a contract; it is not a bond spanning lifetimes. It is not a [sacred] duty… “Nikah” is not a religious sacrament for us.”
The question now arises: Is the UCC truly an attempt to target a specific religion, or is it, rather, a step toward upholding the principle of equality enshrined in the Constitution? A glance at the global landscape reveals that uniform civil laws are already in force in the majority of democratic nations. In this context, Owaisi’s opposition clearly indicates that he seeks special privileges for himself within the country in the name of Islam; despite representing 20 per cent of the nation’s population, he wishes to remain categorised as a ‘minority’- and, within that status, he demands distinct freedoms based on religion.
It becomes patently clear here that he has absolutely no regard for the principle of equality within the nation! Consequently, he further argues that if the UCC were to be implemented with the Hindu Marriage Act serving as its foundation, it would constitute a violation of the religious freedom of Muslims. Owaisi does not stop there; he goes on to make numerous other assertions as well. On the surface, these arguments may appear to stem from a genuine concern for religious freedom; however, upon closer scrutiny, this line of reasoning comes under question on multiple levels.
Does the UCC equate to “Hindu Law”? Owaisi’s primary argument is that, under the guise of the UCC, “Hindu law” will be imposed upon Muslims; however, this argument itself rests on a flawed premise. The Uniform Civil Code does not imply imposing the laws of one religion upon another. Its true essence lies in establishing a civil law that applies equally to all citizens, regardless of their religious affiliation. Under this framework, uniform rules govern matters such as marriage, divorce, adoption, inheritance, and property rights. In a modern democratic system, this arrangement is regarded as a mechanism for reinforcing equality and gender justice.
Uniform Civil Laws Prevail in Most Countries Worldwide
Viewed from a global perspective, uniform civil laws- in one form or another- are operational in the vast majority of nations across the world. According to the United Nations, there are approximately 193 countries globally; in a significant number of these nations, there are no distinct, religion-based laws governing matters of marriage, divorce, or property rights. For instance, in countries such as France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Switzerland, Brazil, Russia, South Korea, and China, a single civil code applies uniformly to all citizens.
In France, this system was implemented as early as 1804. Known as the Napoleonic Civil Code, it laid the foundation for modern civil law and subsequently influenced the legal systems of numerous countries across Europe and Latin America. In these nations, marriage is recognized as legally valid solely through civil procedures, while divorce and property rights are likewise governed by a unified legal framework. This explains why, in modern democratic nations, the inclination to maintain a clear separation between religion and law appears particularly pronounced.
The pertinent question, therefore, is this; If the majority of democratic nations worldwide have successfully decoupled civil laws from religious dogma- ensuring their equal application to all citizens- and if these uniform laws are universally regarded as symbols of democracy and modernity, then how logical is it to characterise the Uniform Civil Code in India as an “assault on religion”?
The Politics of Religious Identity
In this context, it must be said that while Owaisi’s statements may outwardly appear to present a legal argument based on religious identity, they are, in reality, purely political. When he asserts, “I should be allowed to conduct myself according to my own religion,” this argument certainly champions the cause of individual religious freedom; however, it also raises a fundamental question: Should civil laws be determined solely on the basis of religious identity?
How can Owaisi overlook the fact that India is a democratic and secular nation- one where the foundation of law is citizenship, not religion? If every community were to demand a separate legal framework governed by its own religious laws, where, then, would the constitutional principle of equality stand? This is precisely why Article 44 of the Directive Principles of State Policy within the Constitution advocates for the implementation of a Uniform Civil Code. The framers of the Constitution firmly believed that, in a modern nation-state, there must be a uniform set of laws applicable to all citizens.
Reforms in Muslim-Majority Countries
It is also noteworthy that significant reforms in family law have been undertaken in many Muslim-majority nations across the globe. For instance, Turkey adopted a modern civil code in 1926 and abolished Sharia courts. Similarly, Tunisia enacted a Personal Status Code in 1956, which outlawed polygamy and granted women expanded rights.
In contrast, most Muslim-majority countries have adopted a hybrid model that combines Sharia law with modern civil law. This category encompasses numerous Asian, Middle Eastern, and African nations, including Indonesia, Malaysia, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Algeria, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. In these countries, criminal law, administrative systems, and the majority of government institutions operate within a modern constitutional framework; however, the principles of Sharia continue to exert influence over family matters such as marriage, divorce, and inheritance. In several of these nations, one observes the coexistence of Sharia-based family laws for the Muslim community and distinct civil laws for other communities.
Furthermore, some countries have vested limited authority in religious courts to adjudicate family disputes, while in others, Sharia law is applied in its entirety. A comprehensive assessment of the global landscape reveals that a Uniform Civil Code is more prevalent in modern, democratic, and developed nations, whereas religious principles play a relatively larger role in family laws within Muslim-majority countries. Thus, global experience suggests that the concept of a Uniform Civil Code is primarily rooted in the modern nation-state’s ethos—one that places citizens under a unified legal framework rather than subjecting them to disparate laws based on religion. A Uniform Civil Code is generally regarded as a significant stride toward fostering civil equality, gender justice, and the strengthening of a modern legal system.
Indeed, these examples demonstrate that it is possible to strike a balance between modern legal principles and religious traditions. Therefore, Owaisi’s assertion that the concept of a UCC is inherently opposed to any religion does not appear entirely accurate.
The Issue of Women’s Rights
A major argument in favour of the UCC is inextricably linked to women’s rights. The existence of disparate personal laws often results in women being denied equal rights. The rights of Muslim women, in particular, have frequently been the subject of legal debate in the courts. For this very reason, the Supreme Court recently observed that the time has come to give serious consideration to implementing a UCC in the country. If a uniform law were enacted, it could grant women more equitable rights regarding marriage, divorce, and property. Consequently, viewing the UCC solely through the lens of a religious issue arguably narrows the scope of this debate.
The Need for Uniform Laws in Bharat
Bharat is a nation characterised by immense diversity, home to a multitude of religions, languages, and cultures. Yet, amidst this diversity, equality at the legal level remains an imperative. When it comes to civil rights, it is essential that a uniform legal framework exists for all citizens. This not only reinforces the judicial system but also fosters a greater sense of equality within society. In this context, the examples of Goa and Uttarakhand are frequently cited, as their respective Civil Codes apply- with near uniformity- to all communities. This serves as a testament to the fact that the Uniform Civil Code model is indeed a viable possibility in India. The UCC must be implemented in the country to strengthen justice, equality, and a modern legal framework; therefore, it must be implemented.
