Uniform Civil Code: Indian Catholic Forum Feels There’s No Need for it

Kanpur: In response to the Law Commission of India’s notification on 14^th June 2023 soliciting responses from the public at large to submit its “views and ideas” on the Uniform Civil Code (UCC), the Indian Catholic Forum, a collective of concerned Indian Catholics for church reform and national integration, on July 10^th in its submission, said, that there’s was no need of an UCC.

Below is a text of the Indian Catholic Forum’s response:

BACKGROUND: Your notification refers to the 21^st Law Commission of India (LCI) that had prepared a questionnaire on 7/10/2016. (At the time, the undersigned had submitted a detailed reply to the 16 questions asked). The then LCI was inundated with responses and on 31/8/2018 it was constrained to conclude that the UCC was “neither necessary nor advisable at this stage”. These are ominous words. One could have then erroneously concluded that the issue had been well and truly buried! It is therefore surprising that the 22^nd LCI, after a 5-year hiatus, has “considered it expedient to deliberate afresh over the subject” (sic). Pray what has changed in the last 5 years?

Before proceeding further it would be “expedient” to reiterate what the previous LCI had warned in its appeal letter, “no one class, group or community dominates the tone and tenor of family law reforms”. It is therefore hoped that this observation will be kept in mind during all future deliberations on the UCC.

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS: Our preliminary objection is that the LCI has not brought out any guideline or draft of the proposed UCC. This gives credence to the increasing belief that this is more of a political stunt rather than any sincere attempt to bring about social cohesion or gender equality. It is also not stated anywhere as to who wants the so-called UCC. In the light of the above one is constrained to limit this response to issues that are in the public domain. I shall focus mainly on issues affecting the Christian/ Catholic community specific to Marriage, Divorce, Succession and Adoption.

MARRIAGE: We are governed by the Christian Marriage Act of 1872 (CMA), that earlier had some gender disparities. They were removed by Act 51 of 2001. Hence, the CMA as it stands today is socially equitable and gender neutral. However, there are some minor provisions that could be tweaked. Sec 3 refers to the Churches of England, Scotland and Rome. The first two have ceased to exist in India. Further, sec 1 states that it does not apply to the erstwhile States of Travancore-Cochin, J&K and Manipur. These require to be amended.

CIVIL-RELIGIOUS INTERFACE: This is often a bone of contention; not so for Christians. We follow the secular principles of the Lord Jesus Christ who said, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s” (Mat 22:21). This is the very foundation of secularism. Besides, the CMA states that the legal age for marriage is 21/18 for men and women respectively. However, Sec 65 states that this does not apply to Catholics and Sec 88 states that it “respects personal laws”. The “personal laws” for Catholics (who are 70% of the Indian Christian population) is the Code of Canon Law. Catholics are probably the only community in India that actually have codified laws. However, their purpose is primarily religious, not civil. There is one anomaly in the interface between civil law and Canon Law. This refers to the legal age for marriage. As per civil law, as stated herein above, the legal age for marriage is 21/18. However, as per Canon 1083:1 it is 16/14. Nevertheless, Canon Law further states that it “respects the competence of civil authority in respect of the merely civil effects of the marriage” (Can 1059). It further states that no one should celebrate a “marriage which cannot be recognised by the civil law, or celebrated in accordance with it” (Can 1071:2). Hence, the Catholic Church in India dutifully abides by the provisions of civil law.

Perhaps the LCI and other communities could learn from the example of the nuanced approach of the Catholic Church in India.

DIVORCE: We are covered by the Divorce Act of 1869. Existing gender biases were removed by Act 51 0f 2001. Hence, there is no need to amend the same. Even though the Catholic Church does not accept divorce per se, it nevertheless respects the purely civil aspects like custody of children, payment of maintenance/ alimony etc. Here again the Christian community is in no need of an UCC.

SUCCESSION: We are covered by the secular Indian Succession Act of 1925. We faced some injustice u/s 213 of the same. However, that too was removed by an act of parliament. So here again, no need of an UCC.

ADOPTION: Earlier Christians who probably ran the highest number of orphanages did not have the right to adopt. However, an amendment to the Juvenile Justice Act about 15 years ago provided for “all” to have adoption rights. Here again, no need of an UCC.

OTHER ISSUES:

1. EQUAL RIGHTS FOR DALIT CHRISTIANS: The UCC seems focussed on uniformity. What about equality? The Presidential Order of 1950 gave SC status only to Hindus. In 1956 it was amended to include Sikhs, and in 1990 to include Buddhists. Why are Dalit Christians and Muslims excluded? If benefits for STs and OBCs are religion neutral then why the dichotomy for SCs? The UCC should remove this anomaly.
2. TRIBAL CUSTOMS: The Constitution protects the tribal customs of Nagaland (Art 371A) and Mizoram (371G). There are also matrilineal practices among the Khasis of Meghalaya. Will the UCC subsume them?
3. CONSTITUIONAL PROVISIONS: The Govt often boasts of its abolition of Article 370 pertaining to J&K. What about Maharashtra and Gujarat (371), Assam (371B), Manipur (371C), Andhra Pradesh (371D), Sikkim (371F) and Arunachal (371H)? This section concludes with Article 372 stating that laws may be allowed to continue, even after the Constitution comes into force. So is the UCC unconstitutional?
4. GOA CODE: This is a misnomer and a fallacy. There is no such thing as an UCC in Goa that votaries of the BJP keep talking about! There are only certain family laws that are far from uniform. These laws were last revised in Portugal in 1936 and significantly changed in 1966 (though not in Goa that had attained independence in 1961) as they were not in sync with modern circumstances. For example, it does not cover contemporary assets like shares, bitcoins and cyber property. It has a strange law called “Code of Customs and Usage of Gentile Hindus”, itself an obnoxious term. It allows Hindu men to take a second wife in certain circumstances! Goa also has a separate Children’s Act. The strangest thing in Goa is what is called the “Communion of Assets”, by virtue of which after marriage the spouses become owners of each other’s properties. In a patriarchal society, such sweeping provisions can easily be misused making the woman even more vulnerable. It is therefore safe to say that the family laws of Goa cannot be taken as a model for the UCC. 
5. OTHER COMMUNITIES: Will the UCC remove the tax benefits provided exclusively to Hindu Undivided families (HUF)? Several large business families avail of this. The Muslim community is often targeted for polygamy. However, according to the 2011 Census (the latest) their female/ male sex ratio is 951:1000. Hence, the instances of polygamy would be minimal. Besides, polygamy is prevalent in some tribal communities. So the proposed UCC should not be used as a tool to demonize the Muslims and thereby win Hindu votes on the rebound. Other than the above, even internationally, the Sikhs are permitted to keep a beard and turban in “uniformed forces”. The Indian Army has various ethnic based regiments like Sikh, Jat, Dogra, Gorkha etc. Each one follows its own customs and has distinct uniforms. Will the UCC dare to take on the army?
6. ABUSE OF LAW: While polygamy is usually related to Muslims, there are many non-Muslims who convert to Islam just to circumvent the law and take a second spouse..

CONCLUSION: In the light of the above, there is no need of a UCC as already stated by the previous LCI in 2018. Several legal luminaries and gender activists have recommended that the better option would be to address and amend the anomalies or injustices found in the existing laws of the land; as has previously been done for the Christians. The Indian judicial system is overburdened with a backlog of cases. Introducing the UCC in any form will lead to an unwelcome spike in cases, adding to the burden.

This submission is made bearing in mind the interests, not just of the Catholic/ Christian community, but also of women and men who believe in social equity, gender justice and the rule of law. JAI HIND.

The Convenor of Indian Catholic Forum is chhotebhai (Kanpur), convenor media John Shilshi IPS Retd (Goa), secretary Isaac Gomes (Kolkata), treasurer Cornelius Kujur (Kanpur) advisors: Swami Sachidananda (Kochi) and Rev Francis Rozario (Kolkata).