When criminal laws, which are more important than civil ones for running the affairs of the state, are not uniform in the various States and Union Territories of India, how can we think of implementing uniform civil code in the country, argues Soroor Ahmed
While those engaged in manufacture, sale, purchase, transportation and consumption of liquor in Gujaratface 10 years imprisonment in neighbouring Maharashtra, one is free to drink. This is the situationnotwithstanding the fact that in both the states, like the Centre, the Bharatiya Janata Party is inpower. Apart from Gujarat, the only other dry state is Bihar.
What is interesting is that while civil servant trainees in Lal Bahadur Shastri National AdministrativeAcademy, Mussoorie in Uttarakhand can take as much alcohol as they like; but once they are posted in thesetwo states, they have to implement prohibition. Mark the irony, as per the law in Gujarat and Bihar,these officials in Uttarakhand are its violators and are thus criminals. Yet they are supposed to implement it if theyget Gujarat or Bihar postings.
This is just a random example of absence of Uniform Criminal Code in India. There are several otherexamples not only here but in many developed countries of the world, whom we blindly imitate.
For instance, there is neither Uniform Civil Code or Uniform Criminal Code in practice in the UnitedStates of America. The most glaring example is that of gun-control law which varies from state tostate. It is said that the gun-related violence is more rampant in the states where the law is lenientin comparison where it is a bit tougher.
While capital punishment is in force in some states, in others it isn’t. That is, for one crime acriminal is executed in one state, but would get life term or even lenient punishment in another.
Similarly, there are different laws in different states on abortion, same-sex marriage, etc. One caneasily travel to a state where there is lenient law to get abortion done in the US.
So, if there is no uniformity in criminal code, which is more essential for any country, how can itreally implement Uniform Civil Code? On paper it can certainly claim to have one.
In India, innumerable leaders and workers of the BJP or other parties do not mind taking wine or gettingengaged in the liquor business, but cannot do so in the above-mentioned two states.
There is no dearth of public opinionmakers and journalists who quote Article 44 but forget Article 47which says: “…the state shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except formedicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health.” Both theArticles are parts of the same Directive Principles. Yet these journalists went on warpath whenprohibition was imposed in Bihar on April 1, 2016. The logic was that Bihar would suffer huge loss ofrevenue and thus would not progress.
IMPLEMENTATION OF LAW MORE IMPORTANT
In India, taking and giving dowry are unlawful acts. Yet, according to the National Crime Record Bureaudata, on an average every day 20 dowry-related deaths take place in India. That is more than 7,000 youngbrides die unnatural death every year yet no anchor, feminist, legal expert – not to speak just aboutpolitician – create any storm over it. As if the society has given tacit approval to such crime. In 2014,the figure was 8,500 while in 2021 it was 6,800.
In contrast, the media gives disproportionately high space to the isolated incident of instant TripleTalaq. No doubt this action cannot be condoned yet in this case at least the life is spared.
Not only that, how serious are we in implementing laws related to women’s safety. Had it not been so, theglobally-reputed woman athletes had not taken to streets for over six months to get justice. Are we reallybothered about the implementation of domestic violence law?
HISTORIC BACKGROUND
It is not just the BJP which has raised the issue of Uniform Civil Code. The Left-liberal dominatednewspapers and magazines – there was no private television channels then – strongly demanded the UCC inmid-1980s after the Supreme Court ruling on Shah Bano case.
It is another thing that the same Left-leaning forces are questioning Prime Minister Narendra Modi whenhe raked up this issue in Bhopal on June 27. The truth is that imposing Uniform Civil Code is not aneasy exercise and such statements are just given for political purposes. The secular intellectuals tooare not less responsible for confusing the common masses on this issue.
For example, it was often saidthat Goa has Uniform Civil Code. The fact is that this is the only state where Hindus, and followers ofno other religion, have been allowed to marry more than once. This is notwithstanding the fact thatthere are 25 per cent Christians and eight per cent Muslims – besides 66 per cent Hindus – in Goa. Onceeven a question was asked in the Civil Service Preliminary Test as to in which state of India Hindus are allowed to marry more than once.
Now that the announcement for the imposition of UCC has evoked sharp reaction from the tribal-dominatedstates of North-East, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, etc., the government is thinking of exemptingAdivasis from the Uniform Civil Code. If this is so, how can we call it Uniform Civil Code?
It needs to be mentioned that the champions of Federalism are of the view that apart from foreignpolicy, defence and currency, the rest of the subjects should be left in the hands of the states. TheUnited States is an example of a federal country. In such a situation, one cannot expect uniformity beit in a criminal or civil matter.