Hindu College Legatus Youth Conference

Presented by
Prayan foundation

Background Guide
LOK SABHA

Agenda:
"DELIBERATION UPON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
UNIFORM CIVIL CODE WITH EMPHASIS TO
RIGHTS OF WOMEN IN INDIA"
 LETTER FROM THE EXECUTIVE BOARD

Dear Delegates,

At the outset, on behalf of the Executive Board, we warmly welcome all of you and congratulate
you on being a part of the LOK SABHA, which is being simulated at Hindu LYC MUN.

This introductory guidance aims to provide you with a basic understanding of the committee's
expectations and the areas that should be the focus of your research at this particular time. It is
intended to be as abstract as possible. We at the executive board would aim to test your analytical
prowess and presence of mind, given the political and contentious nature of the committee's
agenda.

Please make sure that you logically infer and expand the scope of your research beyond the areas
indicated below to include areas related to and beyond the issues raised.

The Content provided here is a compilation of various research and literary works of various
authors and thinkers blended with the intellect of the executive board. It is to be noted that the
content provided below in no way reflects the personal ideologies of the executive board and has
been prepared to keep in mind a neutral point of view.

If you find any difficulties while researching, feel free to contact us and let your inner diplomat
flourish. Looking forward to a formidable committee and debate! Wishing you all good luck.

Regards
Swayam Ranjan, Speaker
Arjun Pundir, Deputy Speaker
Shruthika Sethuraman, Deputy Speaker
Shreyanshu Pandya, Secretary General
 A Brief Overview: Uniform Civil Code (UCC)

The facets of 'Secularism' and 'Freedom of religion' play an important role in shaping a U.C.C.
The Preamble of the Constitution states that India is a 'Secular Democratic Republic. It is to be
said that "There is no State religion. A secular State shall not discriminate against anyone on the
grounds of religion. The Supreme Court held no nexus between religion and personal law in the
case of Sarala Mudgal v. Union of India, interpreting the scope of Article 44 of the Constitution.
It is worth noting that Article 25 of the Constitution of India guarantees religious freedom, while
Article 44 seeks to provide a U.C.C. The Courts have echoed on several occasions that personal
issues relating to marriage, succession, and so on of a secular character cannot be brought within
the parameters of Articles 25, 26, and 27 of the Indian Constitution.

The Indian population is like a bunch of flowers in a vase. There is diversity in terms of religious
faith, customs, festivals, food, language, and culture, and consequently diversity in personal laws
as well, as applicable to different people. Before independence, the foreign rulers, whether in
their wisdom or for reasons of expediency, did not interfere in the personal laws of the people
and allowed them to be governed by their laws and customs based on their traditions or religious
beliefs, in a matter of marriage, divorce, adoption, and property. The period of codification was
ushered into the country in 1883 with the Macaulay Law Commission.
There has always been a debate about common Hindu laws in the Parliament, and a committee
titled B.N. Rau Committee was established. The committee ruled in favor of the Uniform Civil
Code (U.C.C.), which would ensure gender-equal rights and secure equality for women in the
sphere of rights in consonance with modern society. At the same time, this was one cause for
favoring the U.C.C.; the primary focus was to align the Hindu law with the scriptures. The
committee proposed a civil code for succession and marriage. The Parliament debated on the
report provided by the committee and, relying on the report, passed the Hindu Code Bill. Though
the U.C.C. was the demand of the then prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru, his allies, and a few
devoted women rights activists, they had to compromise to U.C.C. being included as a directive
principle due to resistance from some of the members of the Constituent Assembly.
The Constituent Assembly, after deliberations with a majority, passed the Article recognizing the
concept of the U.C.C. accordingly. The Chairman of the Drafting Committee, Dr. B.R.
Ambedkar, supported the concept of the U.C.C. by stating that they should not read too much
into Article 44 of the Constitution and assured the Muslim members that even if the Uniform
Civil Code were to be implemented, it would apply only to those who would consent to be
governed by it. The U.C.C., being a politically sensitive issue, the founding fathers of the Indian
Constitution arrived at a balancing compromise by placing it under Article 44 of the Constitution
as a Directive Principle of State policy. The journey of the 'Uniform Civil Code' began with

deliberations in the Constituent Assembly.

History of UCC in India:

The Uniform Civil Code, also known as the UCC, is a proposed law in India to create and
execute personal laws of citizens that are applicable to all people regardless of their gender,
sexual orientation, or religion. Currently, the religious texts of different communities regulate
their personal laws. The concept arose during the Constitution's drafting to promote social
cohesiveness and gender equality. However, its implementation has been problematic due to
worries about religious freedom and political sensitivity. Despite frequent debates and appeals
for its implementation, India has yet to implement a complete UCC. Instead, many personal laws
control problems such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, and so on, with religious connections
contributing to a complicated legal landscape. The UCC continues to be debated, illustrating
India's complicated interaction of religious freedoms, constitutional principles, and societal
standards.

The UCC originated with a report on colonial India published by the British government in 1835.
This report stressed the need for uniformity in the codification of Indian law with regard to
crimes, evidence, and contracts. It also specifically suggested that the personal laws of Muslims
and Hindus be kept outside of such codification.
Following the end of British control, the government was compelled to establish the B N Rau
Committee in 1941 in order to codify Hindu law. This was because more laws were being passed
to address personal matters. The Hindu Law Committee was tasked with investigating the
question of whether common Hindu laws were required.
According to the committee’s recommendation, which was based on the scriptures, women
would have equal rights under a codified version of Hindu law. The 1937 Act was reviewed, and
the committee suggested establishing a civil code for Hindu marriage and succession.
Following the Shah Bano case in 1985, UCC became an important subject of discussion in
Indian politics. The issue of applying some laws to all citizens without hurting their fundamental
right to freedom of religion gave rise to the discussion.The discussion then turned to Muslim
Personal Law, which allows for unilateral divorce and polygamy and is considered one of the
legal ways that Sharia law is applied. UCC was again suggested,in November 2019 and March
2020, however each time it was quickly removed without being introduced in parliament.

The Indian Constitution And UCC:

Our Constitution's Part III has some robust protections against infringement on the individual
rights guaranteed to all citizens of the nation, regardless of their distinctions in caste, creed, race,
sex, place of birth, or religion. This prevents the state from passing legislation that would allow
for any form of discrimination based on any of the previously listed grounds. One of the
fundamental characteristics of secularism in India is the state's equal regard for all religions. Our
Constitution's Articles 25–28 have established the idea of granting religious freedom to all of the
people. This made it possible to incorporate personal laws that were based on a person's culture
and religion. However, under the pretext of religious freedom, personal laws in India have
consistently clashed with other fundamental rights outlined in Articles 14–15 and Article 21 of
the Constitution. Nearly all personal laws expressly show how some communities and
fundamental rights are discriminated against in one manner or another.

The Constitution's Articles 14, 15, and 21 serve as watchdogs against discrimination, inequality,
inhumane treatment, and violations of any other fundamental rights on the grounds of
discrimination. However, based on instances from the real world, we have shown ourselves to be
ineffective because this goal has not yet been met with satisfaction. The Indian Constitution, Part
IV, Article 44, states, "The State shall endeavor to secure the citizen a UCC throughout the
territory of India." Nonetheless, Article 37 of the Constitution explicitly states that the DPSP
"shall not be enforceable by any court." The Constitution, however, also makes it quite evident
that DPSP are essential to national governance.

Advantages of UCC:
1. Ensures equal status for all citizens:
To ensure equality, a secular democratic republic must have a common civil and personal law
that applies to all people regardless of religion, class, caste, or gender.
2. Promote Gender Parity:
Most faiths prioritize men in succession and inheritance, leading to discrimination against
women. The Uniform Civil Code promotes gender equality, bringing men and women on par.
3. Meet the aspirations of the youth:
Universal values such as equality, humanity, and modernism impact young people's societal
attitudes and aspirations. The Uniform Civil Code will enable citizens to contribute to
nation-building efforts fully.
4. Promote national integration:
Citizens are treated equally in court, regardless of criminal or civil laws (except personal laws).
Implementing the Uniform Civil Code ensures equal personal laws for all, eliminating
discrimination, concessions, and special benefits for certain communities based on religious
beliefs.
5. Bypass the thorny topic of reforming existing personal laws:
Personal laws in all religions reflect upper-class patriarchal societal norms. The implementation
of the Uniform Civil Code may negatively impact patriarchal orthodoxy.

Disadvantages of UCC:
1. Practical issues caused by diversity in India:
India's diverse culture, including faiths, castes, and states, makes it challenging to establish
standardized regulations for personal concerns such as marriage.
2. Perception of Uniform Civil Code as an infringement on religious freedom:
Minority communities often perceive the Uniform Civil Code as a threat to their religious
freedom. Some argue that the Uniform Civil Code will disregard their traditions in favor of laws
inspired by the majority religious community.
3. State interference in personal matters:
Articles 25–28 of the Indian Constitution provide the right to freedom of religion. However, the
implementation of the Uniform Civil Code may limit religious freedom.
4. Sensitive and Tough Task:
Implementing the Uniform Civil Code requires significant changes, including judicial
pronouncements that promote gender equality and broad interpretations of marriage,
maintenance, adoption, and succession. The government must maintain sensitivity and
impartiality when dealing with minority and majority communities to avoid negative
consequences.

How UCC Affects Different Communities:

India has civil laws governing marriage, divorce, adoption, inheritance, and taxes. These laws are
varied for each community. The implementation of a Uniform Civil Code may impact existing
legislation. Understand the relevant personal laws for each community.

1. Hindu Community:

- MARRIAGE: The Hindu Marriage Act (1955) permits specific exclusions for marriages
under the Act. According to Section 2(2) of the Act, Scheduled Tribes are exempt from
the requirements. According to Sections 5(5) and 7, customary practices take precedence
over regulations of the Hindu Marriage Act. Once these exceptions are in place, the UCC
may eliminate them.
- SUCCESSION: The Hindu Succession Act (1956) identifies the husband's family
members as major heirs of the deceased wife, while her parents and siblings are regarded
as secondary heirs. The Act distinguishes between ancestral property and self-acquired
property. Grandchildren have a birthright to ancestral property, but not over their
 grandparents' acquired property. The Hindu Succession Act's definition of lawful heirs
and property acquisition may be modified to align with UCC guidelines.
- INHERITANCE: According to Section 18 of the Hindu Succession Act, full-blood
relations are preferred over half-blood relations for inheritance purposes. The list includes
individuals who are not eligible to inherit a property due to various reasons. The arrival
of the UCC may alter the current situation.
- ADOPTION: The Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (1956) applies only to Hindus,
Jains, Sikhs, and Buddhists. Couples in these communities can legally adopt and grant
their child the right to inherit their property. The UCC aims to establish uniformity in
adoption practices. Communities that are currently unable to legally adopt children may
now have the choice to do so.
- HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY (HUF): TAX BENEFITS FOR HUF:A Hindu Undivided
Family (HUF) is a separate entity from a legal point of view. The HUF has a separate
PAN card and can run its business and invest in shares and mutual funds. The HUF
enjoys tax exemption of Rs 2.5 lakh. If the government abolishes the tax, insurance, and
investment exemptions given to an HUF as "discriminatory" it will impact millions of
Hindu families. There will be implications of changing the existing loans, insurance
policies, and bank account structures.

2. Muslim Community:

- MARRIAGE: It is stipulated by the Muslim Personal (Shariat) Application Act, 1937

that Islamic law, or Shariat, will govern marriage, divorce, and support. The Shariat law's
minimum marriage age would be altered and polygamy might be outlawed if a UCC were
to take office.
- ADOPTION: A Muslim is not now allowed to adopt a kid, but he is still able to become a
“Kafil” and support a child's upbringing even if he is not the child's biological parent. If a
UCC is involved, this will alter.
- MARRIAGE AGE: There has been a continuous discussion about this, with numerous
court petitions calling for a standard age of marriage regardless of religious beliefs. The
uniform marriage age will also apply to Muslims if it is implemented through UCC,
altering the existing legal landscape under Muslim personal law.
 - POLYGAMY: Men are allowed to contractually enter into up to four marriages at a time
under Muslim law. Contrarily, women are obligated to their husbands and are not
permitted to get married more than once. The UCC may outlaw polygamy completely,
which would mean Muslim men would no longer be able to lawfully marry four separate
women.
- SEPARATION: The UCC will ensure a greater balance between the rights of Muslim
men and women. Also, there could be some specific legally accepted ways through which
Muslims can dissolve their marriage that would be common to both men and women.

3. Christian Community:

- MARRIAGE: In accordance with Catholic law, Christian marriage recognizes the

principles of oneness, indissolubility, and permanence and is considered a sacrament. It is
anticipated that UCC will promote uniformity among religions, since some regard
marriage as a contract and some as a sacrament.
- DIVORCE: Catholic law does not recognize divorce since, to Christians, marriage is a
sacrament. Conversely, Christians may seek for divorce under the terms of the Indian
Divorce Act of 1869. It is anticipated that the Uniform Civil Code will standardize
divorce-related laws and processes.
- SUCCESSION: Christian mothers are not entitled to any of their deceased children's
property, according to the Succession Act of 1925. The father is to inherit all of these
properties. Provisions under Section 43 of the Act oblige the mother to share the property
equally with the deceased husband's brothers and sisters, even in situations where the
deceased child's father does not survive. The mother is not entitled to what her husband
was entitled to. Under the UCC, this clause could be modified.

4. Sikh Community:

- MARRIAGE & DIVORCE: The Anand Marriage Act of 1909 covers Sikh marriage
regulations. The law of Sikhs makes no mention of divorce. The Hindu Marriage Act
governs Sikh divorces. The Anand Marriage Act's provisions regarding Sikh marriage
and registration are probably going to be incorporated into common law if a UCC is
presented.
 Role of Judiciary:

Several landmark cases have shaped the discourse surrounding the UCC in India. For many
decades now, courts have been trying hard to push forward the implementation process for the
Uniform Civil Code. However, there are still some loopholes left open that need attention from
the legislature part, so here we look at a few important cases that have played a major role in
strengthening the argument favoring enactment –

1. Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985): This case raised questions about the
rights of Muslim women regarding maintenance after divorce. The Supreme Court's
ruling in favor of Shah Bano Begum, applying the principles of maintenance under the
secular law (Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code), sparked debates about the
need for a UCC to ensure gender equality.
2. Sarla Mudgal v Union Of India 1995: In this landmark judgment Supreme Court held that
pre-existing Hindu Marriage Act 1955 should not be applied non-Hindus because it
violates Article 44(1) i.e directive principle mandating establishment uniform civil code
throughout country hence directed state governments provide separate legislations
governing inter-faith marriages between two individuals belonging different religions so
they can legally tie knot without facing any obstacle created due conflicting personal
laws within community.

3. John Vallamattom v Union Of India 2003: This particular case dealt with the question of
whether a Christian minority can seek judicial remedy under existing personal religious
law if the aggrieved party does not belong to the same faith, answer provided the apex
court was affirmatively stating provisions contained therein provide protection even those
who don’t follow Christianity but rather choose to opt-out from entire gamut covered by
said act thereby paving way future enactments concerning minorities rights regarding
matters pertaining family affairs like marriage dissolution, etc.
 4. Shayara Bano v Union Of India 2017: Here, SC struck down the practice of instant triple
talaq as unconstitutional and violative Articles 14, 15, 21 which guarantee the right
equality before law, freedom from discrimination etc. This judgment has been seen as a
major step forward towards realizing the goal of a uniform civil code amongst citizens of
India as it provides a clear indication that no particular group can be allowed to impose
their religious beliefs upon others without due consideration or consent of other party
involved thereby helping state implement its directive principle enshrined Part IV A
Constitution.

Uniform Civil Code in Light of Law Commission of India’s 2018 Consultation

Paper on ‘Reform of Family Laws’
The paper recommends that it deal with all provisions of personal laws that are discriminatory
and suggest suitable amendments in the same rather than providing a U.C.C., which, according
to the commission, is ‘neither necessary nor desirable at this stage.’
The observations against the desirability of having a U.C.C. stated that it is important to protect
and preserve diversity and plurality that constitute the cultural and social fabric of the nation.
The commission opined that its suggestion is made while being conscious of the diversity and
plurality of the nation. It is submitted that our diversity has already received protection under
articles 25-30 of the constitution. Moreover, this diversity is not a new development and has been
a part of Indian society since antiquity, something that the constitution makers were well aware
of. To argue that a U.C.C. is undesirable so as to protect diversity and plurality is to imply that
the Constitution makers erred in prescribing Article 44 in the first place, as it is against the spirit
of plurality that manifests itself in the Indian culture.
It is discrimination and not difference, which lies at the root of inequality. The commission
references how many nations recognize differences and celebrate them, as the mere existence of
a legally pluralistic society does not imply discrimination. It is submitted that the commission’s
observation is absolutely correct. The U.C.C., as envisaged by our forefathers, does not intend to
dilute our differences that are worth celebrating. In fact, if implemented with requisite patience
and awareness, it would allow all communities to view these differences or diversities with
greater positivity. The principles that will ultimately find a place in the U.C.C. will combine the
best elements of all the different religious personal laws, giving the members of one community
a chance to view the positive impact of the laws of another. Provisions that happen to be
discriminatory under all religious personal laws shall not find a place in the uniform civil code.
To reconcile freedom of religion and the right to equality, when the constitution makers decided
to make the right to freedom of religion subject to ‘public order, morality, health and to the other
provisions of Part III,’ they did manage to create a hierarchy that must be acknowledged.
Moreover, religious freedom has also been subject to State intervention for the purpose of social
reform. This makes the stand on reconciliation between freedom of religion and the right to
equality amply clear. A UCC, if implemented, will probably manifest the greatest form of social
reform in the context of family as it will aim to remove all gender-based inequalities and social
evils that have so far enjoyed state sanction despite running contrary to constitutional morality.

UNIFORM CIVIL CODE AND GENDER EQUALITY

Personal laws operate in matters related to inheritance, marriage, divorce, maintenance, and
adoption, regarded as "personal issues, matters that relate to the family or ‘personal’ sphere.
They control the relationship between men and women regarding the aforementioned matters.
Despite differences between personal laws of different communities, they are discriminatory
towards women. Separate personal laws are applicable to different religious communities of
India, and this is a legacy of the British administration. All four religious communities of India-
Hindus, Muslims, Christians, and Parsi- have their own personal laws. At the same time, other
groups such as Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, and tribal and scheduled castes are subsumed under Hindu
law. Personal laws are not just customary (or common) laws but also statutory laws based on
religion. The same legal-judicial apparatus administers personal law alongside secular laws, civil
and criminal. Any proposed changes in the personal laws are highly contested and treated as a
threat to the identity of the community of traditional patriarchal arrangements.
Various aspects of prevailing personal laws disprivilege women. This Law Commission, in its
71st report, was of the view that it is discrimination and not difference, which lies at the root of
inequality. To address this inequality, the commission has suggested a range of amendments to
existing family laws and also suggested codification of certain aspects of personal laws to limit
the ambiguity in the interpretation and application of these personal laws.

Whether or not personal laws are laws under Article 13 of the Constitution of India or if indeed
they are protected under Articles 25- 28 has been disputed in a range of cases, the most notable
being Narasu Appa Mali. In the absence of any consensus on a uniform civil code, the
Commission felt that the best way forward might be to preserve the diversity of personal laws
but, at the same time, ensure that personal laws do not contradict fundamental rights guaranteed
under the Constitution of India. In order to achieve this, it is desirable that all personal laws
relating to family matters be codified to the greatest extent possible, and the inequalities that
have crept into codified law should be remedied by amendment.

By virtue of being ‘enacted’ as laws, personal law cannot be codified in a way that contradicts
the Constitution. For instance, codifying discriminatory customs, regardless of how commonly
acceptable they may be, can lead to the crystallization of prejudices or stereotypes. Therefore,
codifying any law requires a rigorous debate, and the Commission has taken only the first step in
this direction. At the same time, the very act of codifying separate personal laws could itself be
challenged as an exercise against Article 14 of the Constitution. Therefore, it is urged that the
legislature should first consider guaranteeing equality between men and women within
communities rather than equality between communities. This way, some meaningful differences
within personal laws can be preserved, and inequality can be weeded out to the greatest extent
possible without absolute uniformity.

For long, there has been a battle between freedom of religion and one‘s right to equality. While
the more fundamentalist forces within the society have historically demanded an absolute right to
freedom of religion whereby religious customs cannot be tested against even constitutional
provisions, on the other hand, there are the advocates of the right to equality who suggest that the
law should be blind to cultural difference when it comes to matters of human rights. These two
positions are not exclusive to one another, and one has to reconcile both freedom of religion and
the right to equality in order to administer the law justly. Both these rights are valuable and
guaranteed to every citizen of the country, and to necessitate women to choose between one or
the other is an unfair choice. Therefore, women must be guaranteed their freedom of faith
without any compromise on their right to equality. At this stage, these rights can be reconciled by
making piecemeal changes to laws wherever necessary. The fact that secular laws such as the
Special Marriage Act 1954 also continue to suffer from lacunae suggests that even codified or
religion-neutral laws offer no straightforward guarantee of justice.

At the same time, while freedom of religion and the right to not just practice but also propagate
religion must be strongly protected in a secular democracy, it is important to bear in mind that a
number of social evils take refuge as religious customs‘ These may be evils such as sati, slavery,
devadasi, dowry, triple talaq, child marriage or any other. To seek their protection under the law
as religion would be a grave folly. These practices do not conform to basic tenets of human
rights, nor are they essential to religion. While even being essential to religion should not be a
reason for a practice to continue if it is discriminatory, our consultations with women‘s groups
suggested that religious identity is important to women, and personal laws, along with language,
culture, etc., often constitute a part of this identity and as an expression of freedom of religion.

Nothing in the Constitution of India treats women differently except where the intention is to
benefit them in the interest of equality and justice. Articles 14 and 15 implicitly subsume
equality between sexes and prohibit gender discrimination. This makes the Constitution the most
rational and legitimate ground for women's rights activists and feminists to address the issues of
curbs on the basic liberties of women and their unequal treatment in different domains of society.
Apart from Articles 14 and 15, Article 44 has also been regarded in the women's rights discourse
as a promising provision to ensure gender equality and justice, particularly because it is related to
the rights in private family life, which are often ignored by the State policies.
Since the values deposited in the constitution of India have supreme legal status, their
implementation in the interest of gender equality requires the restriction of other religious values
and practices that might otherwise have constitutional protection.

Basically, the women's rights discourse has almost unanimously invoked the Constitution of the
country in voicing its stand against the unreformed patriarchal personal laws like the law that the
Muslim community in the country has been obliged to follow. The Constitution is a substantial
fertile ground to inspire women's equality and freedom laws. It also suggests that the state's
non-interference in the personal laws on the grounds of protection of community rights and the
unwavering assertion of these rights by the community leaders have kept women's rights in
constant jeopardy.

UNIFORM CIVIL CODE AND WOMEN RIGHTS

Recently, the Supreme Court of India again called for a UCC. The Supreme Court first directed
the Parliament to frame a UCC in the year 1985 in the case of Mohammad Ahmed Khan v. Shah
Bano Begum[1], popularly known as the Shah Bano case. In this case, a penurious Muslim
woman claimed for maintenance from her husband under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure[2] after she was given triple talaq from him. The Supreme Court held that the Muslim
woman has a right to get maintenance from her husband under Section 125. The Court also held
that Article 44[3] of the Constitution has remained a dead letter. The then Chief Justice of India
Y.V. Chandrachud observed that, A common civil code will help the cause of national integration
by removing disparate loyalties to law which have conflicting ideologies. The then Rajiv Gandhi
led Government overturned the Shah Bano case decision by way of Muslim Women (Right to
Protection on Divorce) Act, 1986 which curtailed the right of a Muslim woman for maintenance
under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court, while referring to
Aiyats 241 & 242 of the Holy Quran and came to the conclusion (para. 14 read with para. 22 of
the judgment) that the liability of a concluded that husband under Muslim personal law to
maintain his wife would cease only if his divorced wife is able to maintain herself after the
expiration of the iddat period. The case of Daniel Latifi v. Union of India directed that the ruling
of the constitutional bench in the 1985 case was incorrect. The second instance in which the
Supreme Court again directed the government of Article 44 was in the case of Sarla Mudgal v.
Union of India[4]. In this case, the question was whether a Hindu husband, married under the
Hindu law, by embracing Islam, can solemnize a second marriage The Court held that a Hindu
marriage solemnized under the Hindu law can only be dissolved on any of the grounds specified
under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Conversion to Islam and Marrying again would not, by
itself, dissolve the Hindu marriage under the Act. And, thus, a second marriage solemnized after
converting to Islam would be an offense under Section 494[5] of the Indian Penal Code. The
Supreme Court's latest reminder to the government of its Constitutional obligations to enact a
UCC came in July 2003[6] when a Christian priest knocked the doors of the Court challenging
the Constitutional validity of Section 118[7] of the Indian Succession Act. The priest from
Kerala, John Vallamatton filed a writ petition in the year 1997 stating that Section 118 of the said
Act was discriminatory against the Christians as it imposed unreasonable restrictions on their
donation of property for religious or charitable purpose by will. The bench is composed of Chief
Justice of India V.N. Khare, Justice S.B. Sinha and Justice A.R. Lakshamanan struck down the
Section declaring it to be unconstitutional. A secular State shall not discriminate against anyone
on the ground of religion. A State is only concerned with the relation between man and man. It is
not concerned with the relation of man with God. It does not mean allowing all religions to be
practiced. It means that religion should not interfere with the mundane life of an individual. The
new code should impose monogamy banning multiple marriages under any religion. Polygamy
discriminates against women and violates their basic human rights. Thus, monogamy should be
imposed, not because it is the Hindu law, but because it adheres to Article 21 of the
Constitution[15] and basic human values. The minimum age limit for a male should be 21 years
and for a female should be 18 years. This would help in curbing child marriages. Punishment
should be prescribed for any person violating this provision. Also, punishment for other persons
involved in such an act, like the relatives, should be prescribed which would have a deterrent
effect on the society. Equal shares to son and daughter from the property of the father, whether
self acquired or joint family property. There should be no discrimination based on sex in the
matters of inheritance. The provisions of the Hindu Succession (Maharashtra Amendment) Act,
1994 can be taken as guiding principles wherein the daughter of a coparcener shall by birth
become the coparcener in her own right in the same manner as a son and have the same rights in
the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son, inclusive the right to
claim by survivorship and shall be subject to same liabilities and disabilities as the