The Uttarakhand women’s groups and representatives reacted sharply to the Uttarakhand Draft Bill on Uniform Civil Code and rejected it in toto. A Bill criminalizing constitutional behaviour, and introducing moral policing is unacceptable, the group proclaimed. The Women’s group observe that the Uttarakhand Draft UCC Bill is predominantly a cut paste from the Hindu family laws and does not remove inequalities in family across the spectrum of religious and secular laws. It criminalises the Muslim minority and autonomous, consensual behaviour of adults.
In a press note released by the group, the women representatives of Uttarakhand have pointed out a range of glaring defects, anomaly and malice on part of the legislature in drafting the Uniform Civil Code Bill.
Criminalizing constitutional behaviour and moral policing
While seemingly being uniform across religions, the Bill is actually criminalizing and regulating constitutionally acceptable behaviours, like adult consenting cohabitation, called “live in’, reducing autonomy and choice, which the women in this country have attained through concerted efforts and campaigns, inside the homes and on public platforms. Moral policing measures have been introduced in this regard.
There is a function creep in this law, in that this Bill is intended to target political dissenters and those who are minoritized, which includes, the minoritized withing the Hindu community as well. In the guise of establishing non-registration of a live-in relationship, the State has assumed the power to enter the home and surveil. Criminalisation of adults in consensual live-in relationships, who may have deliberately decided to avoid marriage and its legal consequences, appears to be the main intention of the Bill.
In this way, the Bill is an attack against Fundamental Rights.
Positive Aspects of Muslim Personal Laws Not Incorporated
The Bill, purportedly, seeks to reform the Muslim Personal law, and bring changes that are seemingly defective such as unequal inheritance, polygamy and the practice of Nikah halala. The Bill has terminated the application of Muslim family law and has further criminalised the Muslim man and woman. However, ironically, the Bill has not incorporated positive and progressive aspects of Muslim law such as the compulsory payment of mehr by the husband to the wife which provides financial security of the wife, nikahnama (marriage contract) which allows for the spouses to add legally binding conditions that are mutually acceptable, and a 1/3 limit rule for willing away property.
Had the intention of the Bill genuinely been to bring about gender justice, such provisions could have been extended to women of all communities.
Similarly, the positive provisions from the Muslim law or the Goa law, such as the restrictions on making a will to render equal inheritance rights to naught, have not been considered in the framing of this law.
Gender-Based Discrimination Faced by Women Within Hindu Family not Addressed
The discriminations faced by Hindu women in the family, and which stands unaddressed in the various family laws prevalent in the country, be they the religious personal laws or the Special Marriage Act have not been addressed at all. The Bill’s provisions are so drafted that they cannot be applied to the Hindu Joint Family and coparcenary property owned by it. The 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, provided daughters right to coparcenary property on par with sons, but excluded other female members of the HJF such as widows, wives and mothers. The Hindu Joint Family is premised, even after the 2005 amendment , on descendants (male and female) from a common male ancestor.
Glaringly patriarchal and gender discriminatory provisions have been left untouched by the Bill.
Silence Regarding Christian and Parsi Communities, Adoption and Guardianship
There is a total silence on areas pertaining to custody, guardianship and adoption of children, which are critical areas around which there has been much gender-based discrimination. Presently these matters are dealt by existing personal laws of each community. In the circumstances of a UCC being silent on these, what law would be followed?
The Bill is completely silent on the application of Christian family law and Parsi family law as well as other religious communities, which, apart from being legally untenable, means that these personal laws also have been terminated in the state without any consultation with the said communities.
No special provisions have been brought in to safeguard the rights of queer and transgender persons, and the persons with disabilities within the family who face discrimination.
The Bill should be referred to a Standing or a Select Committee for wider deliberations, as the Bill, which has much import for the people of Uttarakhand and also for the rest of India as a precedent setter, needs to be discussed and people’s, including diverse women’s, queer and trans communities’ responses from Uttarakhand need to be taken into account.
The Uttarakhand women’s groups and representatives of organisations, reject this Bill in toto, in the form introduced in the State Assembly.
Leave a Reply