Muslim opinion is quietly consolidating against the proposed Uniform Civil Code. After other Muslim organisations spoke out against Uniform Civil Code, the Jamaat-e-Islami Hind, which had initially preferred to wait to see the draft of the proposed code, has written to the Law Commission, questioning the timing of the commission’s public notice, issued on June 14, to seek comments from stakeholders on the concept of a Uniform Civil Code.
The Jamaat also expressed lack of “confidence in the Commission” to lead a discussion on the subject. “It is hard to ignore the timing of the exercise chosen by the Law Commission. With less than a year to go before the general elections, any outcome of this consultation is all but certain to cause a major political controversy, as already evident from the manner of reactions elicited by the publication of the Commission’s public notice,” the Jamaat’s vice-president, Malik Motasim Khan, said in the letter.
“The Law Commission cannot claim to be stoically unaware of the contentious nature of the issue undertaken for deliberation, as well as the manner in which certain political actors can deploy it as a lightning rod for polarization. Any serious deliberation on reform of personal laws needs to be undertaken with sensitivity and care that allows for a nuanced and impartial consideration of myriad underlying issues,” Mr. Khan said, adding, “We regret that the timing and manner of the Law Commission’s public notice do not inspire our confidence in the Commission’s ability to lead such a considered discussion.”
Reminding the commission that it had undertaken a similar exercise between 2016 and 2018, and had then concluded that a Uniform Civil Code was “neither necessary nor desirable”, Mr. Khan pointed out the consultation paper wherein the commission had “endeavoured to best protect and preserve diversity and plurality that constitute the cultural and social fabric of the nation”.
Incidentally, the commission had then stated, “Resolution of this conflict does not mean the abolition of difference…Most countries are now moving towards recognition of difference, and the mere existence of difference does not imply discrimination but is indicative of a robust democracy.”
Pointing to the absence of coercion in the wordings of the Constitution behind the Uniform Civil Code, Mr. Khan said, “The meaning of a Uniform Civil Code is vague and unclear. In official discourse, it is often articulated as a legal code that would operate to the exclusion of all religious and customary laws in the domain of matters relating to marriage, divorce, succession and the like. However, it is not at all clear that this was the meaning envisioned by the framers of the Constitution in Article 44, which only lays down that the state shall ‘endeavour’ to ‘secure for the citizens a uniform civil code’. However, the Constitution is silent on important questions regarding the nature and scope of such a code. Will it prohibit the exercise of all prevailing religious and customary laws and practices, such as the civil and taxation laws governing the Hindu Undivided Family, or will it be in the nature of a law like the Special Marriages Act, 1954 which only applies to those who register under it?”
As far as the question of Muslim personal law is concerned, the Jamaat clarified that adherence to Islamic law in matters relating to marriage, divorce and succession, and others is considered a religious obligation by Muslims and is “an essential facet of the ‘practice’ of their religion, which is protected by Article 25 of the Constitution”.
