NEW DELHI: A quarter of a century after stating in the Sarla Mudgal case that the country could not bear delays in enacting a Uniform Civil Code, the Supreme Court on Wednesday cautiously entertained two PILs uniform divorce laws and uniformity in the granting of food and alimony to women, and requested the response of the Center.
On behalf of the petitioner Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, the main defenders Pinky Anand and Meenakshi Arora argued that the different modes of divorce and the various means of maintenance and alimony for women provided for in personal laws violated the right to equality and non-discrimination and they were an affront to the rights of women. to dignity, which is an integral part of their right to life.
A bench of Chief Justice SA Bobde and Justices AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian appeared circumspect when considering the statement, fearful that doing so would mark an intrusion into the personal laws of religious minorities who are sensitive about what they consider to be a constitutionally guaranteed autonomy.
“Can we eliminate discriminatory practices against women in various religious communities without invading their personal laws?” asked the bank.
However, the Anand-Arora duo, a strategic choice for Upadhyay to defend their case, made a strong pitch for the court to overcome their hesitation. Anand reminded the bank that the apex court he stepped on personal laws when he declared instant divorce among Muslims by triple talaq unconstitutional.
Arora advocated judicial intervention and highlighted that, despite the SC’s exhortation in the Mudgal ruling, the Union government had not moved to introduce the Uniform Civil Code. “Women and gender equality go hand in hand. How can alimony or alimony be different for women belonging to different religions?” she asked.
The court was still unconvinced and said it was not the state that discriminated against women from different communities. “It is citizens who discriminate against their fellow citizens through the use of personal laws. Can the state call it discrimination on the basis of gender?” the CJI I ask.
However, Arora insisted and said: “It is an inescapable duty of the state to guarantee the equality and dignity of all women, regardless of their religion.”
Even when the court came to issue a notice to the Center, it clarified that it was doing so “with great caution,” and its approach was in stark contrast to the assertiveness it displayed in the Shah Bano case in 1985. “A common civil code will help to the cause of national integration by eliminating disparities in loyalty to the law that have conflicting ideologies, “the court had unequivocally declared at the time.
In 1995, in the Sarla Mudgal case, he took up what he had left a decade ago and said: “Where more than 80% of citizens have already been subjected to codified personal law, there is no justification to keep in suspense, moreover, the introduction of the Uniform Civil Code for all citizens of India “.
The SC, once again in 2003 in the John Vallamattom case, highlighted the advisability of achieving the objective set by article 44 of the Constitution.
As recently as September 13, 2019, the CS, in the case of José Paulo Coutinho, reiterated once again the need to UCC citing the example of Goa, but the Center had not taken any steps to even provide uniform maintenance and alimony grounds for all Indian citizens, Upadhyay said in his PIL.
“The Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh and Jain communities are governed by the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 and the Hindu Adoption and Support Act of 1956. Muslims are treated on the basis of valid marriage status and prenuptial agreement and are governed by the Muslim Women Act 1986 Christians are governed by the Indian Divorce Act of 1869, and Parsis by the Parsis Marriage and Divorce Act of 1936. But neither of these laws is gender neutral and sets different grounds for divorce, as well as different alimony, “said the petitioner.
.
