{"id":4294,"date":"2026-09-23T04:50:31","date_gmt":"2026-09-23T04:50:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/legallectual.com\/?p=4294"},"modified":"2026-09-23T04:50:31","modified_gmt":"2026-09-23T04:50:31","slug":"when-a-ucc-panel-member-resigns-the-process-becomes-suspect-requires-scrutiny","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/legallectual.com\/index.php\/2026\/09\/23\/when-a-ucc-panel-member-resigns-the-process-becomes-suspect-requires-scrutiny\/","title":{"rendered":"When a UCC Panel Member Resigns, the Process Becomes Suspect, Requires Scrutiny"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

Democracies fail when the institutions of democracy partake in its demolition. A brute Parliament and a weak judiciary are the best ingredients in the making of a failing democracy.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

When the Maharashtra Government announced setting up the panel to decide on the modalities of Uniform Civil Code in Maharashtra, my initial thoughts were to take it with a positive outlook rather than joining the common thought process of opposing the concept as infringing upon Muslim rights.  There are many reasons why I do not go with the general community opposition to a prospective UCC, but I would only state two of the important reasons.  These reasons, in my view, should be the argument to let the exercise of framing of UCC be carried out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

My first argument would be that Muslims living in other countries, as their citizens, duly follow the uniform laws of their respective countries.  Not just Muslims who are the original citizens of those countries, but also Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshi Muslims who migrate and obtain citizenships of those countries.  The Indian Muslims should therefore not object to a UCC, when it is part of the Constitution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The second argument is the fact that India is a multi-cultural, multi-religion country. Unity in diversity<\/strong> had been the key feature of this beautiful country.  \u201cHad been<\/strong>\u201d, until the policy of creating divisions on the ground of religion, culture, caste etc. gained prominence.  Considering the huge and complex diversities, there should not be an apprehension that Muslim rights would get affected.  Though, there are many reasons for the apprehensions considering how the current regime has been systematically working overtime with a bias against minorities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is a fact that rights of Muslims as provided for under Shariah form part of Indian legal system in terms of acceptance, implementation and application and which would get affected.  Yet there are other aspects and intricacies that would require consideration in framing of a UCC.  If the panel fails to or is \u201cbulldozed\u201d to act fairly, this will determine the ultimate intent of the Government in introducing UCC.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While framing UCC, even if it were State-specific, the Panel would have to necessarily navigate through the peculiarities of various religions which have their own inherent needs and complexities and which would necessarily be required to consider.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The final shape of the UCC as may come, would determine whether the Muslim rights were be singled out to be trampled under the guise of UCC.  There would always then be a scope for litigation and political opposition (though with the present state of the Indian National Congress and other parties who selectively show minority love, how strong a political opposition would be is anybody\u2019s guess).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Coming to the article shared in this post, the first signs of apprehension of \u201cbull dozing\u201d the final UCC can be deduced.  The Hon\u2019ble Justice (retd.) R. C. Chavan\u2019s resignation from the Panel should not go unnoticed. Justice Chavan is a  well-respected proponent of UCC, albeit by advocating consideration of rights of various religions.  The reasons stated in this article for his resignation as Member of the Panel, shows how from the very beginning of the process, there is an invisible hand<\/strong> that is being employed to shape the outcome of the Panel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Though I would be open to a well-meaning Uniform Civil Code, I would definitely not hesitate to voice my opposition to an \u201cimposed\u201d UCC which would deny parity of Muslim rights with rights of other religions. A well-intended and an all inclusive Uniform Civil Code should not be opposed merely because of the colour of the ruling dispensation. As citizens, we are bound towards the Constitution and its instrumentalities, but not at the cost of being controlled, regulated and forced to act subservient under the guise of constitutionality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Article 14 and Article 13 are not meant for the Constitution without its real application.\u00a0Article 245, as has been consistently held by the Supreme Court, is subject to provisions of Part III of the Constitution.\u00a0Part IV is also subject to Part III of the Constitution. Competence of Parliament and State Legislatures to make law under Article 245 read with Article 246 to give effect to provisions of Article 44are subject to Part III of the Constitution of India<\/strong>.When a UCC Panel Member Resigns, the Process Becomes Suspect, Requires Scrutiny<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Democracies fail when the institutions of democracy partake in its demolition. A brute Parliament and a weak judiciary…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"csco_singular_sidebar":"","csco_page_header_type":"","csco_custom_appearance":"","csco_disable_excerpt_posts_layout":false,"csco_page_load_nextpost":"","csco_post_video_location":[],"csco_post_video_location_hash":"","csco_post_video_url":"","csco_post_video_bg_start_time":0,"csco_post_video_bg_end_time":0},"categories":[41,51],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/legallectual.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4294"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/legallectual.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/legallectual.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legallectual.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legallectual.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4294"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/legallectual.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4294\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4295,"href":"https:\/\/legallectual.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4294\/revisions\/4295"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/legallectual.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4294"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legallectual.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4294"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legallectual.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4294"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}