‘सबके लिए न्याय हो, एक न्याय सबके के लिए नहीं’ | UCC पर सबसे बड़ी चर्चा | दिल से, कपिल सिब्बल के साथ

The episode focuses on the Uniform Civil Code (UCC), discussing its constitutional intent and its political implications in India. Attention is given to how Article 44 was included in the constitution as a directive principle aimed at unifying civil laws across religions, but debates in the Constituent Assembly revealed opposition, especially from Muslim members, fearing it would threaten their personal laws. The BJP advocates for UCC, claiming it's essential where they govern, while non-BJP states show no interest, sparking political and communal debate.

The discussion points out the selective focus on certain directive principles like cow slaughter and UCC, while others like wealth concentration and resource distribution are largely ignored. Since personal law falls under the concurrent list, it allows both Parliament and states to make laws, hence different states might have different laws. There’s no enforcement of uniformity, only a goal for gender-just laws, which suggests separate laws could exist but should adhere to equality.

The introduction of experts, including Faizan Mustafa, a legal scholar, and Chandrachud Singh, a Supreme Court advocate, enriches the debate. They argue that while a uniform code is a politically charged issue, it should not compromise on fairness. A truly gender-just code should not just aim for uniformity but fairness and equity in personal laws, and reforms should not be driven by political motives. Examples from other countries with varying personal laws reinforce the complexity of uniformly applying UCC.

The panelists discuss the issue of how UCC could exacerbate divisive tendencies rather than unite diverse Indian communities. A balance is suggested with reforms focusing on fairness and gender justice rather than strict uniformity and a political agenda. They emphasize considering community feedback, particularly affected women, and ensuring reforms are genuine, not politically motivated, which could alienate minorities amidst India’s rich diversity across tribal, Hindu, Muslim, and other communities.

Discussion highlights technological advancement needs versus the political discourse around UCC, stressing how the government's current focus on divisive issues might prioritize political gain over integrating immense diversity. The narrative critiques political strategies, suggesting UCC is used more for division than for fostering true national progress. Panelists note needing genuine engagement with all communities' practical needs and rights, rather than leveraging civil code laws as political tools.

Panelists continue discussing inherent biases in various religious personal laws, advocating for reforms that ensure rights across gender lines. They acknowledge the challenges, such as patriarchal interpretations and economic interests influencing personal law, and suggest coherent reforms beyond divisive political rhetoric. Emphasis is placed on mutual consent divorces or involving judicial councils for fairer practices across communities, reflecting inclusive constitutional ideals over narrow religious interpretations.

Argument circles back to the constructive, inclusive approach needed for actual reform, highlighting inconsistencies with current approaches like the Uttarakhand model, which might not reflect feminist or democratic ideals. The discourse encourages realistic, informed public consultation in policy changes, and scrutinizes moves that may not effectively translate to holistic, fair laws throughout India’s legal landscape due to political maneuvering.