Concerns Flagged as Gujarat Moves On A Uniform Civil Code

Gujarat, after Uttarakhand, has started the process to promulgate and implement the Uniform Civil Code (UCC).

The committee set up for the purpose of drafting a bill for the purpose under Justice (Retired) Ranjana Desai is in the process of holding public consultations. Two rounds of the same were held in Delhi last week on April 12.

At the same time the civil society activists and groups are trying to highlight the lacunae in the process for bringing about the proposed bill and are airing their reservations against the same.

In a latest development the Gujarat chapter of the chapter of the People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) has written a detailed letter to Justice Desai explaining point by point why such an Act will not be in the interest of the state.

According to a Gujarat government spokesperson, “In the first round, the committee held consultations with representatives of the Muslim Hit Rakshak Samiti. In all 18 representatives of the Samiti presented their views on a number of issues, including the jurisdiction of the state in legislating on the subject, and the conflict between the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution and Article 44 of the Constitution, which is part of the Directive Principles of State Policy. They also promised to submit their detailed written representation before April 15.”

He further added, “In the second round of public consultation, the committee heard the views of Shree Delhi Gujarati Samaj where 14 representatives took part in the consultation process. The representatives of the Samaj expressed their support for implementing the UCC in Gujarat.”

Meanwhile on the same day the PUCL rushed its letter to the office of Justice Desai saying, “The objective of legal reforms should be to promote justice, equality, and social harmony while respecting India’s pluralistic identity. We urge the government to abandon a hasty and unilateral imposition of the UCC and instead adopt an inclusive, deliberative, and rights-based approach to legal reforms. The need of the hour is not forced uniformity, but the empowerment of communities through participatory reforms that address genuine injustices without marginalizing any group.”

The civil society has been underlining the absence of a draft that should have captured and furthered the journey towards gender justice and equal rights thus far. They have been pointing out that uniformity per se does not mean equality and cannot be equated with equality and justice for women.

Referring to the state’s demographic composition in terms of communities and micro communities it is being stated that the deep plurality of traditions, customs, and legal practices cannot be homogenized under a single code.

“A UCC, rather than emphasizing equality, risks erasing cultural identities, creating legal alienation, and deepening social tensions,” the PUCL representation said.

It further stated, “The drafting process of the UCC has been neither transparent nor inclusive, failing to engage in meaningful consultations with religious communities, ethnic groups, women's organizations, LGBTQIA++ individuals and legal experts from diverse backgrounds. Marginalized voices, particularly those from Adivasi, Dalit, Muslim, and other minority communities, have been largely sidelined in discussions about legal reforms that directly impact them.”

There is a call for the government or the UCC committee to come out with a position paper which will be circulated for comments, criticisms and observations by various groups.

Those opposed to the UCC have been pointing towards the Law Commission reports stating that the UCC implementation is not necessary at this time. And that the UCC implementation in Uttarakhand is the only reference point, and it has already faced severe criticism and legal challenges in the High Court due to its impractical and patriarchal framework.

The PUCL document has also raised concerns on gender justice, pointing out that reforms must be community-led and contextually informed. Strengthening existing gender-just provisions within personal laws, rather than enforcing a uniform code, would be a more effective and equitable approach.

“Moreover, this exercise should not be a missed opportunity to recognize the rights of the LGBTQ+ community, particularly their right to reside together with legal recognition. Any legal reform must be inclusive and address the concerns of all marginalized gender identities to truly advance social equity,” it said.

Pointing out at the dangers of uniformity, the document signed by advocate Anand Yagnik and Mujahid Nafees of the Minority Co-ordination Committee (Gujarat) underlines the very idea of uniformity in personal laws disregards the diverse social, cultural, and religious practices that have evolved over centuries.

India's legal system has always recognized this diversity, ensuring that different communities retain their distinct traditions while upholding fundamental rights. “Moreover, uniformity in law often results in majoritarian dominance, where the customs of the most powerful groups become the default standard, suppressing the rights of marginalized communities. This contradicts the very principles of democracy, pluralism, and social justice that India upholds,” it states.

It has been suggested that rather than enforcing uniformity, legal reforms should focus on strengthening community rights, ensuring gender justice within existing frameworks and fostering social harmony without erasing cultural identities.

It has also been asserted that the UCC is against the vision of Dr. B R Ambedkar on caste annihilation and his position in the Constitutional Assembly (CA).

Dr. Ambedkar advocated inter-caste marriages as a tool for annihilating caste and many states support inter-caste marriages through financial incentives and legal protection. “However, the Uttarakhand UCC, the only reference for a UCC as of now, has provisions that make inter-caste marriages and live-in relationships more difficult by subjecting them to a uniform legal framework, which may not provide adequate social and economic safeguards. Rather, such provisions invade their privacy and put their lives at risk in a caste-ridden and patriarchal society,” the letter said.

Another important point that has been raised is that while the UCC is intended for the entire country, yet different states are drafting their own versions, making the very concept of ‘uniformity’ inconsistent.

The PUCL has also pointed out that the women's movement in India has shifted from an initial demand for a UCC to a more nuanced approach focused on legal reforms within personal laws and new legislation ensuring gender justice across communities.

It emphasized that uniformity does not guarantee equality and that uniformity in the legal framework overlooks the diverse realities of women and marginalized groups.

“There have been reforms suggested by reputed feminist organizations on the secular Special Marriage Act too, with a view to eliminate all provisions that are antithetical to the principle of equality, and to ensure privacy, dignity and protection to those who wish to exercise their right to intimate choices that transcend caste, religion and gender binary. The government should recognize this instead of framing an unconstitutional legal framework that is harmful to society,” it pointed out.

It has been recommended that there should be a transparent and inclusive consultation process alongside contextual and community driven legal reforms.

It has also been recommended that legal pluralism be recognized and minority rights be protected.

The PUCL also called for strengthening existing gender justice laws and policies without dismantling cultural identities.

It further stated, “Ensure that discussions on the UCC remain non-partisan and are approached from a legal, social, and rights-based perspective rather than a political one. Avoid using the UCC as a means to further communal divide, and instead, focus on inclusive legal frameworks that promote social harmony.”

The letter concluded, “We recommend that the comprehensive consultations across the country should culminate in a Common Civil Code (not Uniform) which would primarily be a Gender Equality Code which any citizen can voluntarily choose to be governed by. The CCC thus formulated would have taken into account and incorporated within itself the diverse gender-just practices from across diverse communities. This would give individuals, especially women, choices that would not be too much at divergence with their own religious beliefs and cultural identities; but would have eliminated all aspects that would be gender-unjust and violative of other fundamental rights. This CCC would co-exist as an option with the existing personal laws that would, as always, continue to be reformed to become incrementally gender just. This would ensure that the choice as well as the agency of transformation lies with the diverse communities, especially the women.”