The Delhi High Court on Friday declined to hear a batch of petitions seeking direction from the Centre and the Law Commission to draft and timely implement the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in the country. The court observed that the Law Commission is already addressing the matter, noting discrepancies in the identity of individuals booked by the police and their alleged roles in the incident that occurred 18 years ago.
A division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna, after recording the submissions, decided to dispose of the matter, stating that the Law Commission of India is already handling the issue, and the court cannot direct the legislature to enact a specific law. The Centre Government, in its reply, asserted that the enactment or non-enactment of legislation is a matter of policy for elected representatives, and no court direction can be issued in this regard.
The Centre, through the Ministry of Law and Justice, opposed the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and other petitions advocating for a UCC. The government’s reply argued that the reliefs sought by the petitioners are not sustainable in law or on facts and are liable to be dismissed. The affidavit also contended that the petitioner, Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, lacked sufficient interest in the proceedings.
The court was examining several petitions seeking direction for the Law Commission to draft the UCC within three months, covering aspects like the minimum age of marriage, grounds of divorce, maintenance and alimony, adoption and guardianship, succession, and inheritance. The petitions argued that the nationwide application of UCC would eliminate multiple personal laws, fostering tolerance among various groups.
The first petition was filed by BJP leader and lawyer Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay in 2018, with subsequent petitions filed by other individuals, including Abhinav Beri, Firoz Bakht Ahmed, Amber Zaidi, and Nighat Abbass. All petitions urged the Centre to constitute a judicial commission or a high-level committee to draft the UCC within three months, considering the practices of all religions, civil laws of developed countries, and international conventions.
The petitioners contended that India urgently needs a UCC to promote national integration, gender justice, equality, and the dignity of women.
They argued that gender justice and equality, guaranteed under Articles 14-15 of the Constitution, along with the dignity of women under Article 21, cannot be secured without implementing Article 44.
The proposed UCC would replace personal laws based on religious scriptures and customs with a common set of rules for all citizens.
