The Supreme Court has pushed for a Uniform Civil Code over the years, calling it “desirable”, but refused to “enforce” it. File | Photo Credit: PTI
The Supreme Court has pushed for a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) over the years, calling it “desirable”, but refused to “enforce” it.
The apex court has held that Article 44, which enjoins upon the state to endeavour to secure to its citizens a UCC, corresponds to Part IV or the Directive Principles of State Policy, which are only guidelines and do not create any justiciable rights in favour of any person.
But this has not stopped the court from blaming successive governments for not taking effective steps to make UCC into a reality. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s call for a “secular civil code” in his Independence Day address has brought the issue into focus.
The court’s largest Bench in history has a paragraph devoted to the UCC. Justice S.M. Sikri, on the 13-judge Bench in the Kesavananda Bharati case in 1973, reminded the then government that the state should endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.
But the court had also held back, observing that “desirable as it (UCC) is, the government has not been able to take any effective steps towards the realisation of this goal”.
Also Read | The politics of the Uniform Civil Code
“Obviously no court can compel the government to lay down a UCC even though it is essentially desirable in the interest of the integrity, and unity of the country,” Justice Sikri had opined.
The court’s awareness of its limitation in enforcing a UCC could be seen clearly voiced by Justice E.S. Venkataramiah in the 1982 Constitution Bench judgment of National Textile Workers versus P.R. Ramakrishnan.
“Would this court enforce a UCC in respect of all citizens, without the aid of an appropriate legislation even though the concept of equality is enshrined in the Constitution and Article 44 specifically requires the state to endeavour to secure for all citizens a UCC? It may not do so,” Justice Venkataramiah observed.
The only solution
The judge suggested that the only solution was “to appeal to the appropriate organs of the State to do their assigned job in the best interests of the community”. The Supreme Court cannot find a solution to all problems.
Three years later in 1985, another Constitution Bench in the Shah Bano case rued how UCC remained a “dead letter”. It said there was no official activity for framing a common civil code for the country. The court again reminded the government that the ball was in its court. “It is the state which is charged with the duty of securing a uniform civil code for the citizens of the country and, unquestionably; it has the legislative competence to do so,” the court said.
In Sarla Mudgal, a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court made a direct exhortation to the government to implement the UCC. “We request the Government of India through the Prime Minister of the country to have a fresh look at Article 44 of the Constitution and endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India,” Justice Kuldip Singh wrote.
As late as in 2019, in Jose Paulo Coutinho, Justice Deepak Gupta recorded that no action has been taken to secure the citizens a UCC despite the “hopes and expectations” of the founders of the Constitution.
But there are also judgments which had advised restraint, and that UCC was not to be implemented in one go. In Pannalal Bansilal judgment, the court said a one-stroke implementation “may perhaps be counter-productive to the unity and integrity of the nation”.
