UCC: Women’s Forum Launches Campaign for ‘Immediate Withdrawal’ of Law Commission’s ‘Appeal’, ‘Questionnaire’

The Law Commission "fails miserably" in following the February 2014 guidelines laid down by the Indian government, is "likely to confuse issues of gender justice" pending before the Supreme Court and is ill-advised "the current communally charged atmosphere". 

Photo: Jagrut Bharat

The Mumbai-based Forum Against Oppression of Women (FAOW) today launched a signature campaign calling upon the Union Law Commission to withdraw the “Appeal” and “Questionnaire” with immediate effect. It has appealed to women's groups and citizens across the country to endorse its statement detailing the reasons why the Commission should do so.

Among the reasons cited for the withdrawal is that the Commission "fails miserably" on all the guidelines stated by the government of  India's “Pre Legislative Consultation Policy” published on February 5, 2014 which laid down 12 guidelines to be followed for the pre-legislative consultation. The most important of the guidelines stipulated that "Every department/ministry concerned should publish/place in public domain the draft legislation or at least the information that may inter alia include brief justification for such legislation, essential elements of the proposed legislation, its broad financial implications, and an estimated assessment of the impact of such legislation on environment, fundamental rights, lives and livelihoods of the concerned/affected people, etc… for a minimum period of 30 days."

Instead of placing a draft the Commission has chosen to put out a 'questionnaire'. According to the Forum, it is "impossible to respond to some of the questions" in the absence of such a draft.

Further, putting out such a draft at a time when several petitions on issues of gender justice are pending before the Supreme Court "without draft legislation in the current social context would in fact confuse the issue of gender justice". 

"In the current communally charged atmosphere this issue requires utmost sensitivity. In fact some tribal organisations have already approached Supreme Court challenging the notion of a “Uniform Civil Code”, says the letter. 

The Forum has appealed for an endorsement of its letter to the Commission. Those who agree to do so are requested to e-mail their endorsement to: faowindia@yahoo.co.in OR  sandhyagokhale@yahoo.com.

The Forum has appealed for an endorsement of its letter to the Commission. Those who agree to do so are requested to e-mail their endorsement to: faowindia@yahoo.co.in OR sandhyagokhale@yahoo.com.

Photo: Getty image

Full text of the letter addressed to the Law Commission:   

We the undersigned organisations and individuals submit our response to the “Appeal” dated 7^Th October 2016, by the 21^st Law Commission to begin healthy conversation on viability of Uniform civil code as below.

We are aware that formulating any legal provision based on foundation of Indian constitution is an arduous task. It requires tremendous effort and commitment to basic tenets of the secular, democratic socialist framework of the Constitution.

For drafting of the constitution on 29 August 1947, Constituent Assembly set up a Drafting Committee under the Chairmanship of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar to prepare a draft Constitution for India. The assembly met in sessions open to the public, for 166 days, spread over a period of 2 years, 11 months and 18 days before adopting the Constitution, the 308 members of the assembly signed the document on 24 January 1950. 

Not only that but from 1930 women’s organizations have put out the demand for a comprehensive code. In response to that, under the chairmanship of law minister Dr Ambedkar, a committee was formed which modified further the first draft of Hindu code bill formulated in 1941. But many hindu fundamentalist voices from the assembly did not allow passage of this bill and in protest Dr Ambedkar resigned as law minister. Thereafter between 1952 to 1956 Jawaharlal Nehru managed to get the Hindu code bill passed in four separate segments.
We state all this to emphasise that no far reaching effective, just legal reform can be carried out without putting in similar sustained and intense efforts.

We are aware that any legal reform follows three phases: Pre-legislative phase, Legislative phase and Post-legislative phase.

This current effort of the law commission will fall within the ambit of Pre-legislative phase. The Law and Justice ministry of the Government of India has published the “Pre Legislative Consultation Policy” on 5^th February 2014, which lays down the to be followed for the pre-legislative consultation. There are total 12 guiding principles laid down in this policy.
The first two important points are reiterated here:

• Every Department/Ministry shall proactively publish the proposed legislations both on the internet as also through other means; the detailed modalities of such publication may be worked out by the Department/Ministry concerned.
• The Department/Ministry concerned should publish/place in public domain the draft legislation or at least the information that may inter alia include brief justification for such legislation, essential elements of the proposed legislation, its broad financial implications, and an estimated assessment of the impact of such legislation on environment, fundamental rights, lives and livelihoods of the concerned/affected people, etc. Such details may be kept in the public domain for a minimum period of thirty days for being proactively shared with the public in such manner as may be specified by the Department/Ministry concerned. 

If we look at the “Appeal” published by the 21^st Law commission of India, it fails miserably on all the guidelines stated by the PLCP referred to above.

In this context hence, we place before you our main concerns regarding your appeal in the context of the “Uniform Civil Code”:

1. The Questions are asked in context of “Uniform Civil Code”. But there is no draft put out of “Uniform Civil Code” referred to time and again in the “Appeal”.
2. The “Appeal” is accompanied by one questionnaire the purpose of which is purportedly to solicit ideas and opinions for a comprehensive exercise of revision and reform of family laws. In the absence of any draft put out, it is impossible to respond to some of the questions.
3. Most of the questions are “multiple” choice or binary in nature. Such kind of questionnaires are normally subjected to statistical analysis. We realise that the manner in which the questions are posed are misleading or at times leading to seek some answer which could then be put to some sort of statistical analysis. This leads us to wonder whether it is process in which some sort of majoritarian view point would get imposed on marginalized section of society based on the quantitative result. In fact, most of the issues raised in the questions do not confine to a yes-no/ one word/ multiple choice answers, but should be part of long debates, and consultative processes which should follow from detailed presentation of some existing draft.
4. This kind of an appeal makes a mockery of the pre-legislative process, which is not to be equated with “electoral” democracy based on numerical equations.
5. At this moment, many from the Muslim community, progressive women’s collectives and other organizations which also have men in forefront, are raising issues of gender equality before the Supreme Court. Given that the Supreme Court is hearing petitions challenging some of the gender biased aspects of Muslim Personal law, the timing of this “Appeal” and questionnaire raises many doubts. Introducing this “Appeal” and “Questionnaire” without draft legislation in the current social context would in fact confuse the issue of gender justice.
6. In the current communally charged atmosphere this issue requires utmost sensitivity. In fact some tribal organizations have already approached Supreme Court challenging the notion of a “Uniform Civil Code”.
7. This “Appeal” without a draft legislation would definitely be used as a tool to vitiate and polarize communities given the fact that elections are soon to be held in some states.

Taking into consideration our submissions above, we respectfully request the Law commission to withdraw the “Appeal” and “Questionnaire” with immediate effect.
 
Yours sincerely,
 
Forum Against oppression of Women, Mumbai