Uniform Civil Code a necessity; cannot be voluntary as observed by Dr Ambedkar in view of fear expressed by minorities: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has called upon the Central government to implement the mandate of Article 44 of the Constitution of India which exhorts government to bring about a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) [Mayra Alias Vaishnvi Vilas Shirshikar v. State of UP and others]..Single judge Justice Suneet Kumar said that we have entered the third decade of the twenty first century and a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is long due."The UCC is a necessity and mandatorily required today. It cannot be made ‘purely voluntary’ as was observed by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar 75 years back, in view of the apprehension and fear expressed by the members of the minority community," the Court said.The observations were made while hearing a batch of petitions moved by many inter-faith couples who had approached the court for protection from private respondents.While advocating the idea of common code for marriages, the Court said that it is the need of the hour that Parliament comes up with a common family code, as inter-faith couples (petitioners) can't be hounded as criminals."There is nothing ‘special’ about marriage to subject it under different laws for various communities, thus, erecting barriers in the free intermingling of the citizens. The petitioners, herein, cannot be hounded as criminals. Their 20 of 40 crime, if any, is that they have succumbed to the dictates of their heart for each other," the Court said.The Court, therefore, directed the Government of India to consider the constitution of a committee/ commission for implementing the mandate of Article 44, as directed by the Supreme Court. .Uniform Civil Code cannot be made ‘purely voluntary’ as was observed by Dr. BR Ambedkar 75 years back, in view of fear expressed by minority community.Allahabad High Court.Further, it held that UCC will help the cause of national integration by removing disparate loyalties to laws that have conflicting ideologies."A belief seems to have gained ground that it is for the minority community to take a lead in the matter of reforms of their personal law. That has been the consistent official stand of the Government within the country and in international forums. A common civil code will help the cause of national integration by removing disparate loyalties to laws that have conflicting ideologies. No community is likely to bell the cat by making gratuitous concessions on this issue. It is the State which is charged with the duty of securing a uniform civil code for the citizens of the country and, unquestionably, it has the legislative competence to do so," the judgment said..The Court also placed reliance on Hindu Family Code and held that it laid down the foundation of transforming the traditional Hindu society, and the legislations lifted and transported the Hindu personal law from the Shastra/ religion and placed it within the domain of the Parliament."Parliament through HFC in a single stroke provided a legal platform where Hindu citizens could interact with each other on equal terms irrespective of rigid Hindu social order embedded in rigid caste, jati, creed, gotra and the concept of purity, pollution in marriage and dining," the Court noted.In this regard, the Court also noted how the HFC brought minorities like Sikhs, Buddhist and Jains within the definition of Hindus."There is no friction or animosity between the majority and the minority religions, including the sub religious groups, that has grown out of Hinduism. The afore-noted minorities have not complained that HFC in any manner encroached, influenced or was an impediment in their cultural practices or the way of life," the Court said.Rather, HFC has fostered and cemented the minority communities included within the definition of Hindus as a citizenry interacting on a legal platform on equal terms, without, the intervention of religious texts, priest customs and dogmas of the respective communities, the Court added..Pertinently, the Court also remarked that existence of multifarious personal laws cannot be a valid defense when personal laws across the board violates fundamental rights..[Read order]