- 15 minutes ago
In an interview on India First, Senior Advocate at the Supreme Court of India Aryama Sundaram shared his constitutional perspective on the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) and secularism in India. Sundaram stated, "All of them should be uniform, and I'm a great believer that the uniform civil code is a must." He emphasized that civil matters such as marriage, divorce, and inheritance should be governed uniformly by the state, distinguishing civil codes from ecclesiastical practices. Discussing the role of the judiciary versus the legislature, Sundaram explained that lawmaking is the prerogative of Parliament and state assemblies, while the Supreme Court's mandate is to examine constitutional validity if a law is challenged. He addressed the federal rollout of civil laws, citing historical amendments to the Hindu Succession Act across states. He noted that directive principles guide national progress and that personal laws treating individuals unequally go against basic morality, public interest, and constitutional equality.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:01So Union Home Minister Amit Shah, he's raised the issue of common civil law,
00:05saying even in the past, secular countries cannot have religion-based personal laws.
00:12He's raised it in the past.
00:14He's linked it to Muslim appeasement politics in the past.
00:17That's why it couldn't happen.
00:18But now, 21 NDA and BJP rule states where 2029 will have common law.
00:23This incidentally is the third in the BJP's long-standing pledge or promise won.
00:30The Divya Bhavya Maryadha Purshottam Shriram Mandir at Ayodhya, promise number one.
00:36Two, removal of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir.
00:39The BJP has always said,
00:41Ek Deshme, Do Vidhan, Do Pradhan, Do Nishan.
00:44One country cannot have two constitutions, two prime ministers and two flags.
00:49And of course, the third, uniform civil code.
00:51So, is UCC by 2029 a political pitch to polarise or fulfilment of a long-standing pledge?
01:00Joining me on India First, right now, for the legal appreciation of what the BJP wants to do,
01:07is one of the sharpest legal minds and the finest constitutional experts,
01:12amongst the finest constitutional experts,
01:14Arima Sundaram, Senior Advocate at the Supreme Court of India.
01:17Sir, as always, welcome.
01:20Opponents of the UCC often cite Article 25,
01:25Freedom of Religion, to argue personal laws are protected under Article 25.
01:30As a constitutional expert, how do you reconcile this friction
01:34between an individual's right to his religious practice
01:37and the state's directive under Article 44 to ensure gender justice and equality?
01:43Look, Gaurav, I have always, always been a strong believer
01:48in the conventional understanding of secularism.
01:51That conventional understanding of secularism is
01:55that the state does not involve itself in religion.
01:59A state makes its laws as the government of the day sees fit for society.
02:05The elected government sees that for the overall welfare of society,
02:09public interest, what should be the laws?
02:11Religion does not enter into the state's thinking.
02:16And this is conventional secularism.
02:19Unfortunately, unfortunately in India,
02:21there was a judgment of the Supreme Court,
02:23which I do not agree with at all,
02:26which has made secularism a proactive duty.
02:30This freedom of religion,
02:33if you trace it to secularism,
02:35all it meant was that everyone is free to pursue their religious practices.
02:40State has no role to play in it.
02:42However, this judgment of the Supreme Court unfortunately said,
02:47the state has a proactive duty to ensure that their freedom of religion is available.
02:55This is what has given rise to an enormous litigation upon their rights under Article 25,
03:02that under Article 25,
03:04I have a right to practice my religion.
03:06These are only ecclesiastical issues, according to me.
03:13Ecclesiastical issues.
03:14I can worship my God in the way I want to worship my God.
03:18That is an ecclesiastical matter.
03:21The state will not interfere
03:22and will protect everyone worshipping their God
03:25in the way they want to worship God.
03:27Now, that is the issue of secularism to which we can go.
03:32We have unfortunately taken it to an extent of saying
03:35that every religion insists that they must have their own laws,
03:38their own rules for all kinds of issues
03:41which go permeate right through society.
03:44Rules like divorce, like marriage, like inheritance,
03:48so many other laws.
03:50All of them should be uniform
03:53and I am a great believer
03:54that the uniformed civil court is a must.
03:57Will it be challenged?
03:58Of course it will be challenged.
03:59It will be challenged.
04:01Again on what?
04:02Article 25, right to religion.
04:05But I ask myself,
04:07the very word civil courts,
04:10uniformed civil courts
04:12are not ecclesiastical courts.
04:15No law can say
04:17you shall worship the God you believe in.
04:20You shall worship Lord Krishna in so-and-so manner
04:23or you will worship Ayyapa in so-and-so manner
04:26or you will worship Allah in so-and-so manner
04:29or Christ in so-and-so manner.
04:30That is not what uniformed civil court is.
04:33Yes.
04:33And it's a big, big hullabaloo according to me
04:37which makes the state have so many different laws
04:41which is so difficult
04:43and it actually creates a great inequality
04:47among various citizens of India
04:50merely because of the religion they are born in.
04:53What a wonderful point you've made.
04:55Absolutely, sir.
04:56So in the name of freedom of religion,
04:58can an individual be denied her right,
05:01for example, in marriage
05:02or in divorce or in inheritance
05:05and continue to get away with it?
05:07Or as you rightly pointed out,
05:09pray in the manner you want to
05:11but marriage, divorce, inheritance,
05:13common laws have to come.
05:15These are civil issues.
05:16Get married in the way you want to.
05:19Get married with the ceremonies you want to.
05:23No problem.
05:24Nobody can say your marriage
05:26should only have these ceremonies
05:27and not another ceremony.
05:29By all means,
05:30do all that
05:32which religion is really directly concerned with.
05:35But like I said,
05:37a government should be blind.
05:40A state should be blind to religion
05:42in that so far as the state is concerned,
05:45it is secular.
05:47It does not see religious divides.
05:50It governs in the best manner
05:52that the people should be governed.
05:54Now, if you don't like the manner
05:56in which the government is governing,
05:58you change the government.
05:59That is democracy.
06:00Through elections, yes.
06:01But it is not a case of saying
06:05that look,
06:06I am of a certain religion.
06:07I believe in all these kind of civil rights.
06:10What is inheritance?
06:11It's a civil right.
06:13Yes.
06:14What is divorce?
06:15It's a civil right.
06:16If you want to go down to it,
06:18Christianity didn't even recognize
06:19the existence of divorce.
06:21In Christianity,
06:22there was no such thing as divorce.
06:24Yes.
06:24Now, these are all
06:25totally different issues.
06:27These are civil issues.
06:28But ecclesiastical issues
06:31of course the state
06:32will not interfere.
06:33It will not tell you
06:34what are the ceremonies
06:35to get married,
06:36what are the ceremonies
06:37to have when you have to
06:39bid goodbye to a departed soul.
06:41That is not something.
06:43But civil law.
06:43But inheritance
06:43state laws have to be similar.
06:46But sir,
06:47let me now take this
06:47a little deeper.
06:49So,
06:50we are such a big country.
06:51We are a diverse country.
06:53States like Uttarakhand,
06:55for example,
06:55they've passed
06:56their version of UCC.
06:58Now,
06:58this piecemeal rollout,
06:59Uttarakhand UCC
07:00may be very different
07:02with Goa UCC,
07:04may be different
07:04with the Gujarat UCC
07:06or the Northeast UCC.
07:08I want to understand from you,
07:10will this create confusion?
07:11Should there be
07:12a central law
07:13debated and passed
07:14by parliament?
07:15Or is this
07:15state-by-state-by-state
07:17approach better?
07:19According to me,
07:20one parliament law
07:21is always useful.
07:22But don't forget,
07:23we are a federal republic.
07:24Although we are a union,
07:25we are really very federal
07:27in character
07:28and the courts
07:29have also been
07:29our constitution
07:30recognizes
07:31the federalism
07:32which is underlying
07:34our whole constitution.
07:36Now,
07:36I'm giving you
07:37one very typical example.
07:39Take Hindu law
07:41on the law
07:42of inheritance,
07:44on the law
07:44of what was called
07:45the Hindu joint family,
07:47the copasunary property,
07:49the joint family property
07:50where
07:51women did not
07:53have a right
07:54to be copasunas.
07:56Now,
07:57what happened was
07:58the law
07:58has been amended,
08:00the Hindu succession act
08:01has been amended
08:01to allow
08:03women
08:04to also be copasunas.
08:06However,
08:07however,
08:08each state
08:09had a power
08:10to notify it
08:11at the time
08:12they were ready.
08:13So states like
08:13Tamil Nadu
08:14and Andhra Pradesh
08:14brought it in earliest.
08:17Other states
08:17brought it in later.
08:19So for a period
08:20of time you had
08:21where these were
08:21the rights of people
08:22in Tamil Nadu,
08:24the woman in Tamil Nadu
08:25had the rights
08:25earlier than the woman
08:26in some other state.
08:28But that is a natural thing
08:29which happens
08:30in federalism
08:31and it should not
08:32be a dampener.
08:33It should be something
08:34where all parties
08:35should pull along
08:37and look at it
08:38as a point
08:38which is positive
08:39for the country.
08:40After all,
08:41we call ourselves
08:41a union.
08:42We call ourselves
08:43one country.
08:44Then why do we divide?
08:46Is politics
08:47need a solution?
08:48Every political party
08:50must come together
08:50and debate this
08:52for the benefit
08:52of people of our country.
08:54Then is there merit
08:55in some political parties
08:56and leaders saying
08:57that this targets
08:58only Muslims in India?
09:01You know,
09:02even the founding fathers
09:03of our country,
09:04the framers
09:04of the constitution,
09:06they did not make a law
09:07but just kept it
09:08as a directive principle.
09:09If it wasn't done then,
09:11why is an effort
09:12being made now, sir?
09:13The law has taken
09:15made great strides
09:17what were directive principles
09:20and considered toothless
09:21at one time.
09:23Today,
09:24the law is very clear
09:26that when you interpret
09:27any law,
09:28you interpret it
09:29and the directive principles
09:30is a sound method
09:32of interpreting it.
09:33You try to interpret
09:34in keeping
09:35with the directive principles.
09:37The very word
09:38directive principles
09:39that this is the direction
09:41in which we want
09:43the country to progress.
09:44Now,
09:44my point is
09:45if you're really upsetting
09:47somebody's religious tenets,
09:50that is different.
09:51But to say,
09:52look,
09:53you are now in India,
09:55you're in Bharat,
09:56this is a uniform method
09:58which we believe in.
09:59We believe
10:00that there should not be polygamy,
10:03there should be monogamy.
10:04We are not making
10:05a separate rule
10:06where the monogamy
10:08is a special favor
10:09given to Hindus
10:10but it is something
10:12which is handicapped
10:14placed on any other religion.
10:16On the contrary,
10:18look at the reaction
10:19even
10:20to something like
10:21triple talak
10:22being abolished.
10:24It is something
10:25which was
10:25well,
10:27very,
10:27very,
10:27very difficult
10:28I would say
10:29at the very least
10:30on Muslim women
10:32and it being abolished
10:33was not wrong
10:34because
10:35it is against
10:36basic,
10:38basic humanity.
10:39that
10:41a woman
10:41can be treated
10:42in a manner
10:43inferior to a man.
10:45A woman
10:46can have a law
10:47different than the law
10:48available to the man.
10:49Now,
10:50this goes against
10:51basic humanity,
10:54it goes against
10:55basic interest
10:56or public interest
10:58goes against
10:58basic morality
11:00and decency
11:01according to me.
11:02Now,
11:02there could definitely
11:03be some kind of practice,
11:06some kind of civil law
11:07which is available
11:08let's say
11:09to a Muslim
11:11or a Christian
11:12or any other religion
11:14which is not there
11:16in Hindu law.
11:17There is no reason
11:18for the state
11:19to say then
11:19this is a good law.
11:21Let's bring this good law
11:22uniformly
11:23to everybody.
11:26And the Hindu
11:26cannot be heard
11:27to object then
11:28and say
11:28but this is not part
11:29of my religion.
11:31Oh, absolutely.
11:32It's part of constitution,
11:33it's part of law
11:35and once passed
11:36by parliament
11:37and let me then
11:37probe this deeper, sir.
11:39Should Supreme Court
11:40step in
11:41in terms of
11:42laying the broad
11:43framework
11:44to guide our lawmakers
11:45so that politics
11:46is kept out of it
11:47or should it happen
11:48state by state
11:49or a central debate
11:51in parliament?
11:51So, Supreme Court,
11:52parliament
11:53or state by state
11:54assemblies?
11:55According to me,
11:56the Supreme Court's job
11:57is to resolve
12:00any ambiguities
12:01in statute.
12:02The Supreme Court's job
12:04is not to tell
12:05the executive
12:05or tell the legislature
12:07what to do.
12:08It's a legislative function.
12:10The legislator
12:11should do it.
12:12However,
12:13if somebody says,
12:14look here,
12:14this is unconstitutional,
12:16it is not correct,
12:17then the Supreme Court
12:18is there to test
12:20whether somebody's
12:21fundamental rights
12:22are being taken away,
12:23whether it's
12:23unconstitutional
12:24or not.
12:25That is when
12:26the Supreme Court
12:27comes in.
12:27The Supreme Court
12:28doesn't come in
12:29to make law.
12:30Supreme Court
12:31comes in
12:31when somebody
12:32feels that the law
12:33is not constitutional
12:34and wants the Supreme Court
12:36to decide
12:37whether it's constitutional
12:38or not.
12:38So, if you ask me,
12:40this is certainly
12:40not a job
12:41for the Supreme Court
12:42now.
12:42On the contrary,
12:43the court should not
12:44get involved
12:45in this at all
12:46unless there is
12:47a challenge
12:47in a court
12:49as to constitutionality,
12:50then the court
12:51gets involved.
12:52But right now,
12:53it's completely
12:53legislative.
12:55Legislative
12:55and states.
12:56Basically,
12:57if one goes away
12:58from this concept
12:59of thinking
13:00that, oh,
13:01religion should be
13:02expanded wider
13:03and wider
13:04and wider,
13:04I'm sorry,
13:05that is not
13:07civil law.
13:08The very fact
13:09it's a uniform
13:09civil court
13:10and not a uniform
13:11religious court
13:12itself answers
13:13everything to you.
13:14If a civil court
13:16brings in
13:17issues which are
13:18ecclesiastical,
13:19then that is
13:20correctable
13:21by going to a court.
13:22Yes, absolutely.
13:24So, in this
13:24India first approach,
13:26let me probe this,
13:27sir, with your
13:27permission a little
13:28deeper.
13:29The political debate
13:30surrounding the
13:31uniform civil court
13:32is often
13:34highly politicized,
13:35hyper-politicized
13:36and is framed
13:37as a, you know,
13:38majority versus
13:39minority issue
13:40or Muslims are being
13:41targeted issue
13:42by political parties
13:43or leaders.
13:44Can the legal
13:45community,
13:46okay, so not
13:47the Supreme Court,
13:48but can the legal
13:49community reformulate
13:51the conversation
13:52to focus purely
13:53on issues like
13:54the ones you
13:55brought out,
13:55gender equality
13:57or child rights
13:58or civil laws
13:59stripping away
14:00any of the
14:01political and
14:02electoral rhetoric,
14:03sir, is that
14:03possible?
14:04Look, the point
14:05of it is,
14:07politics by its
14:07very nature
14:08are politicians
14:09first duty,
14:11the first rule
14:12of political
14:12science and
14:13the political
14:14party is that
14:16a political
14:16party should try
14:17to come to
14:17power.
14:19Now, for that,
14:20anything at all
14:20will be politicized.
14:22We can't keep
14:23away from the
14:23fact that everything
14:24will be politicized.
14:26Now, the answer
14:28to politicizing
14:29everything is
14:30finally the
14:30electoral box.
14:32The people say
14:33what they would
14:34like to follow.
14:35But when religion
14:36gets politicized,
14:37you know, as
14:38Karl Marx said,
14:39religion is the
14:39opiate of the
14:40masses.
14:41You know, we
14:41can always create
14:42a situation out
14:44of religion.
14:45Now, here is
14:46something where I
14:47frankly don't see
14:48where religion
14:49comes in.
14:50If I could see
14:51that anyone's
14:52actual religious
14:53tenets and the
14:55government was
14:56interfering in
14:57ecclesiastical
14:58religious tenets,
14:59I would be the
15:00first to say
15:01ought not to do
15:02so.
15:02But the
15:03Uniformed Civil
15:04Court is
15:04certainly not
15:05that.
15:05It is trying to
15:07bring about the
15:07uniformity that
15:09a country has
15:10diverse as
15:11India does
15:11need and
15:12should have.
15:13And I think
15:14I for one am
15:15a great supporter
15:16of it.
15:16I am a great
15:17supporter of
15:18secularism as
15:19it existed,
15:20that the state
15:20does not involve
15:21itself in
15:22religion in
15:24more ways than
15:24one.
15:25I am also a
15:26great believer in
15:27the fact that
15:27civil matters,
15:28the state is
15:29absolute to
15:30decide.
15:32and the
15:33people are
15:33absolute then
15:34in deciding
15:35who the
15:35government will
15:36be.
15:38Absolutely.
15:39So let
15:39there be a
15:40debate, let
15:41there be a
15:41discussion and
15:42let lawmakers
15:43make the
15:44law and if
15:45it is in
15:46violation of
15:47the Constitution
15:48then the
15:49Supreme Court
15:49will interpret
15:50it.
15:51Sir, for
15:51joining me
15:52here on this
15:53India First
15:53special broadcast
15:54as always,
15:55many thanks.
Comments