SC seeks Centre’s response on plea for uniform divorce law

SC seeks Centre’s response on plea for uniform divorce law

Also Cautiously Entertains PIL On Maintenance Law

Dhananjay.Mahapatra@timesgroup.com

New Delhi:  17.12.2020

A quarter century after asserting in the Sarla Mudgal case that the country could brook no delay in enacting a Uniform Civil Code, the Supreme Court on Wednesday warily entertained two PILs seeking uniform divorce laws and uniformity in grant of maintenance and alimony to women, and sought the Centre's response.

Appearing for petitioner Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, senior advocates Pinky Anand and Meenakshi Arora argued that different modes of divorce and varied means of maintenance and alimony to women provided for under personal laws violated the right to equality and nondiscrimination and were an affront to women's right to dignity, which is part and parcel of their right to life.

A bench of Chief Justice S A Bobde and Justices A S Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian appeared circumspect about entertaining the plea.

‘How can alimony differ for women of different religions’

The court appeared apprehensive whether doing so would mark an intrusion into the personal laws of religious minorities who are sensitive about what they consider to be a constitutionally guaranteed autonomy.

“Can we remove discriminatory practices against women in various religious communities without encroaching into their personal laws?” the bench asked.

However, the Anand-Arora duo, a strategic choice by Upadhyay to argue his case, made a strong pitch for the court to overcome its hesitancy. Anand reminded the bench that the Supreme Court did tread on personal laws when it declared instant divorce among Muslims through triple talaq unconstitutional.

Arora argued for judicial intervention by stressing that despite the SC’s exhortation in the Mudgal ruling, the Centre had not moved to bring in Uniform Civil Code. “Women and gender equality go hand in hand. How can alimony or maintenance be different for women belonging to different religions?” she asked.

The bench was still not persuaded and said it was not the state which was discriminating between women of different communities. “It is citizens who are discriminating against fellow citizens through use of personal laws,”the CJI asked.

However, Arora said, “It is the bounden duty of the state to ensure equality and dignity to all women irrespective of their religion.” Even when the bench came around to issue notice to the Centre, it clarified that it was doing so “with great caution”, its approach offering a stark contrast with the assertiveness it showed in the Shah Bano case in 1985. “A common civil code will help the cause of national integration by removing disparate loyalties to law which have conflicting ideologies,” the court had unambiguously stated at the time.

Full report on www.toi.in