Justice Katju, reiterates the value of a Uniform Civil Code for all Indians

Mangalore Today News Network

 New Delhi, June 3, 2014:  Press Council Chairperson Justice Markandey Katju has set in motion a debate regarding the Muslims support the demand for a Uniform Civil Code. He is reported to have said that one of the reasons for the backwardness of Muslims is that there has been no revisit or revision of their personal law.

Katju kicks offJustice Katju said, "A uniform civil code is vital. Vote bank politics, the reason for its abscence. Muslims suffered the most due to it’s absence as modernisation has not touched Sharia law.

"The issue of a uniform civil code has risen again. I  fully support a uniform civil code," Jus. Katju, said.

He continued that Article 44 of the Indian Constitution, "The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India."

The Constitution came into force in 1950, and 64 years have passed since it was promulgated, but Article 44 has been totally ignored, obviously for vote bank politics, he said.

Katju added that no doubt Article 44 is in the Directive Principles, and not the Fundamental Rights of Constitution, but Article 37 states that "the provisions contained in this Part shall not be enforceable in any court, but the principles therein laid down are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws."

Contending that he has always been raising the matter for the rights of Muslims, again he reiterated, "In fact, one of the reasons for Muslims in India remaining backward is that there was no modernisation of their personal law."

In all modern countries there is usually one common law for everybody and in India also there is one common criminal law; he pointed out and stated, "Nobody objected to that, though many of these laws are against the Muslim law. For instance, Muslim law provides for stoning to death for women committing adultery, but that would be illegal under the IPC,"