Responding to Prime Minister Narendra Modis’ unequivocal endorsement of a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in India, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board took immediate action by arranging an urgent meeting. Given their position as the top Muslim organization in the country they understood the urgency to engage with this issue. The meeting, conducted virtually, lasted for approximately three hours and primarily focused on the legal implications of PM Modi’s remarks, which align with the BJP’s longstanding manifesto objectives.
During a recent address to BJP workers in Bhopal, PM Modi emphasized that having two different sets of laws in one nation is not viable, citing the Constitution’s provision for equal rights and Supreme Court rulings that have advocated for uniform laws. He further criticized political parties engaged in vote-bank politics for instigating Muslims, asserting that the BJP has chosen not to pursue appeasement tactics.
In response to PM Modi’s stance, the Muslim Law Board shared its perspectives on the UCC with the Law Commission. The board will consider inputs from legal professionals and experts while formulating its position. Notably, the Law Commission has initiated a new consultation process on the Uniform Civil Code, seeking opinions from various stakeholders amid reports of an impending draft bill from the government.
A Uniform Civil Code entails the implementation of comprehensive laws applicable to all citizens, superseding religion-based personal laws concerning matters such as inheritance, adoption, and succession. Article 44 of the Indian Constitution urges the state to strive for a uniform civil code nationwide. Last year, a private member’s Bill proposing the formation of a panel to prepare a Uniform Civil Code was introduced in the Rajya Sabha, encountering significant opposition from opposition parties. Though similar bills had been listed in the past, they were not brought forward in the Upper House.
PM Modi’s recent remarks have reignited the longstanding debate on this issue. He questioned the feasibility of having different laws within a single household and highlighted the constitutional provision for equal rights.