Gender Biasness and Need for Uniform Civil Code

The basic issue of ensuring justice and equality to gender is getting trapped in many other contemporary issues like religion, secularism, and freedom. Nonetheless, one can’t ruffle the principle issue under the camouflage and harp on other moderately associated gives throughout each and every day. Sexual orientation issues, in such manner should be tended to truly. This article is an attempt to co-relate the question of gender justice and equality to the issue of the adoption of uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.


The Constitution of India perceives fundamental right to balance as one of the essential privileges of a person. Notwithstanding that, the disparity among people keeps on existing in close to home laws. Even after the adoption of secularism, the parliament of this country has been unable to resolve this problem, as personal religious laws are the main law which still has sex segregation, however these strict laws are considered by the constitution and its creators as the one that is resistant to state control.

 There is an urgent need to address the women empowerment in the core areas of health, security, etc. The Constitution of India accommodates a code for all the residents of India, called Uniform Civil Code[i]. However, the uniformity exists only in the criminal law, as criminal law is applicable equally to all the citizens of the country irrespective of the religion. On account of common law, there is no consistency particularly in the matter of Personal laws. The laws that govern marriage, divorce, inheritance, etc. vary depending on religion.

In India, there are various laws like Hindu Marriage Act, Shariat Law, Indian Christian Marriage Act, and so on. Along these lines, unmistakably there is no consistency in every single individual law as they give inconsistent rights relying upon the religion and the sex.

Personal Laws and Discrimination against Women

In The Holy Quran ladies has been given equivalent rights as men and it places ladies in good positions. In any case, there are sure regions where the ladies had been allowed status lower to men. Quran provides for the concept of ‘Hiba’. This concept provides that the men are the guardians of women since they are the bread earner of the family. It is, thusly, his obligation to take care of his lady.

Quran gives permission to men to have 4 wives. In any case, such right has not been given to ladies. On account of separation, ladies have been powerless. Quran gives the way of separation which expects men to articulate ‘talaq’ threefold, and he is conceded with a separation. This method is highly discriminatory against the women. In the matter of succession, women are given not more than half of the share as compared to the proportion that is given to men. For instance, if sibling and sister acquire the property as replacements, the sibling gets two offers though the sister gets just one offer.

Iddat period is the period after the separation or the passing of the spouse wherein a Muslim lady needs to stay unmarried. During this period she is not allowed to remarry. In the matter of separation, she isn’t qualified for any support past the iddat period.

The Indian law provides that it is required to each spouse to give his better half the upkeep until she can look after herself[ii]. In any case, regardless of whether such a law is material to Muslim Law or not, has involved discussion. It was held by the Supreme Court for a situation that even Muslim ladies are qualified for the support for the period past iddat.

In the case of Danial Latif v. Union of India[iii], it has been held that “when the exhibit of 1986[iv] is tried, a Muslim mate reliably has the commitment to keep up his significant other after the divorce and has to make a fair and reasonable provision for the future of his wife[v].”
Similarly, among the Christians and Parsi Women, there is disparity in the rights of the women as compared to the men.

The Constitution of India and Uniform Civil Code

Article 44 of the Constitution of India[vi] guides the State to give a Uniform Civil Code all through the domain of India. In any case, in light of the fact that the idea of Uniform Civil code goes under the DPSP it doesn’t put any commitment with respect to the administration to uphold it. During the consolidation of the UCC there has been an extraordinary restriction by the Muslim individuals from the parliament.

Naziruddin Ahamed, Mohd. Ismile Sahib, Pocker Sahib Bahadur and Hussain Sahib and so on, made a scorching assault on having a Uniform Civil Code in India. They asserted that it is the privilege of the individuals to keep their own strict laws, that their own laws are the piece of the way of life that they follow and their religion. They asserted that the acquaintance of UCC would lead with a lot of misconception and hatred among the different areas of the nation and that in a nation so various it is beyond the realm of imagination to expect to have consistency of common law. Numerous individuals from the parliament like K.M Munshi felt that if the individual law of legacy, progression and so on is considered as a piece of the religion, the balance of women can never be achieved.

Dr. BR Ambedkar, who was the executive of the drafting board of trustees, gave numerous instances of Transfer of Property Act, Uniform Civil Law, and so forth, which are applicable uniformly to all in the territory of India. Progression and Marriage are the main territories where this consistency has not been made appropriate. The previous conversation unmistakably sets up that the designers of the constitution knew about the sex bad form and sexual imbalance of ladies, and they joined Article 44 in the constitution trusting that it would be presented in future at the suitable time.

Judicial Opinion and Uniform Civil Code

There have been cases in the Indian courts when the legal executive has understood the treachery done to ladies for the sake of individual laws and have maintained the use of uniform laws above the personal laws.

Supreme Court in, Mohd. Ahamed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum[vii] held that despite the fact that it has not been given in the Muslim Law, yet it is the obligation spouse to keep up his significant other past the Iddat time frame. Therefore, S. 125 CrPC which makes it mandatory for the husbands to maintain their wives is secular in nature.

Chinappa Reddy, J. in the case of Ms. Jordan Deigndeh v. S.S. Chopra[viii], worried for the prompt need of a Uniform Civil Code. He concentrated on the unacceptable situation that is the after effect of the nonappearance of a uniform common code.

Again in the case of Sarala Mudgal v. Union of India[ix], the Supreme Court emphatically felt the need of presenting Uniform Civil Code in India. The appointed authorities, for this situation, proclaimed that those relationships that had been finished by the Hindu male upon transformation to Islam with the expectation of directing polygamy are void[x]. In the event that, a Hindu male believers himself to Islam, while his first marriage is as yet staying alive, in such a case there has been a treachery to his first spouse in this way, his subsequent marriage would be viewed as void.

The seat, for this situation, said that the individual laws of the minorities ought to be justified to create strict and social harmony ideally by entrusting the obligation to the Law Commission and Minorities Commission.


Thus, it is clear that the Article 44 talks about the uniform civil code throughout the territory of India and is made to promote unity and integrity in the territory of India. Such an aim is given in the introduction of the Constitution.

There has been a drastic change in the Hindu laws, in the first decade of the commencement of the constitution, but there has been a constant opposition from the Muslim community in this respect. The present scenario in which there is discrimination between men and women is unjust and inhuman. Justice Kuldeep Singh has rightly said that personal laws and religion are not connected. Marriage, progression are the issues that are common in nature and that, these can’t be brought inside the system of Right to Religion[xi].

The cruel act of polygamy has been supposed to be against the ethics of open in numerous nations like the USA. There have been different Islamic nations that have nullified polygamy.  Thusly, there is a need to make Uniform Civil Code, material to all through the India.

There is a requirement for a Uniform Civil Code that is comprised of the absolute best laws in every religion, with the target of expelling sex inclination. Until and except if the ladies have been conceded equivalent rights as men, under close to home laws, the privilege to balance that is guaranteed by the constitution of India can’t be said to be fully implemented. Notwithstanding, while at the same time guaranteeing balance, satisfactory consideration ought to be taken to see that lone the rights are made uniform and not the customs which are a characteristic piece of the culture and religion as else it would disregard the fundamental structure of the constitution viz. secularism.

[i] INDIA CONST. art 44.

[ii] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, No. 2, Acts of Parliament (1974), Sec. 135

[iii]  Danial Latif v. Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 740.

[iv] Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, No. 25, Acts of Parliament (1986).

[v] Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, No. 25, Acts of Parliament (1986), Sec. 3(1)(a).

[vi] INDIA CONST. art 44.

[vii] Mohd. Ahamed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, AIR 1985 SC 945 (India).

[viii] Ms. Jordan Diengdeh v. S.S. Chopra, 1985 AIR 935 (India).

[ix] Sarala Mudgal v. Union of India AIR, 1995 1531 (India).

[x] Indian Penal Code, 1860, No. 45, Acts of Parliament (1860), Sec 494.

[xi] INDIA CONST. art 22; See also art. 23; art. 24.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *