Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (herein after referred as Olga Tellis) was decided in 1985 by the five Judges Bench

Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (herein after referred as
Olga Tellis) was decided in 1985 by the five Judges Bench of the
Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble bench comprised of C.J., Y.V.
Chandrachud, J., A.V. Varadarajan, J., O. Chinnappa Reddy, J., S.
Murtaza Fazal Ali and J., V.D. Tulzapurkar. This case came before the
Supreme Court as a writ petition by persons who live on pavements and
in slums in the city of Bombay. It was prayed by the petitioners to
allow them to stay on the pavements against their order of eviction.
The majority judgment (concurring by all the five Judges) was
delivered by Hon'ble Chief Justice Y.V.Chandrachud.

Factual Score of Olga Tellis

The writ petitions were filed by the slum dwellers and pavement
dwellers before the Supreme Court of India. This class of people
constituted nearly half the population of the city of Bombay. The
respondents - State of Maharashtra and Bombay Municipal Corporation
took a decision that all pavement dwellers and the slum or bust
dwellers in the city of Bombay will be evicted forcibly and deported
to their respective places of origin or removed to places outside the
city of Bombay section 314 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act,
1888. Pursuant to that decision, the pavement dwellings of some of the
petitioners were in fact demolished by the Bombay Municipal
Corporation. The petitioners challenge the order of the Bombay
Municipal Corporation of eviction as being unreasonable and unjust
without providing with alternative living facility. The petitioners
claimed right to livelihood as a part of their right under Article 21
of the Constitution that is right to life under Article 32. Moreover,
petitioners contended that sections 312, 313 and 314 of the Bombay
Municipal Corporation Act are invalid as violating Articles 14, 19 and
21.

Issues Considered by the Apex Court

1. That the order for the eviction of the pavement is the infringement
of their right to livelihood and in turn the encroachment over their
right guaranteed under article 21 of the Constitution.
2. That the impugned action of the State Government and the Bombay
Municipal Corporation is violative of the provisions contained in
Article 19(1) (3), 19(1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution.
3. That the procedure prescribed by section 314 of the Bombay
Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 for the removal of encroachments from
pavements is arbitrary and unreasonable.

Decision of Supreme Court

The decision of the Supreme Court in this case was based on the
humanistic approach of the judges and the Apex Court stepped into the
activist role. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the slum dwellers
must get the alternative shelter if they are evicted from the
pavements.Although, the eviction orders were held to be valid under
article 14 and 19 of the Constitution. Infact, the right to life was
once again enlarged to engulf the right to livelihood as being a part
of liberty of an individual. The decision of the Court also focused on
the concept of the welfare state and reliance though not expressly but
impliedly was placed on the Directive Principles of the State Policies
under the Constitution.

Rationale, Reason and Jurisprudence of Olga Tellis

The decision of this case essentially falls back on the premise of the
positivism. The judgment delivered by C.J., YV.Chandrachud is solely
based on the concept of the analytical positivism of Britain. The
letter of law was considered to be paramount. The Supreme Court
focused on both the premises, that is, reformation and superiority of
the law. In Para 28, Justice Chandrachud took the approach propounded
by Hans Kelson, where he considers constitution as a highest norm or
the Grundnorm. According to Kelson, Grundnorm is the basic norm which
determines the content and gives validity to other norms derived from
it. On this basis, Justice Chandrachud, observes in Para 28 that,

There can be no estoppel against the Constitution. The Constitution is
not only the paramount law of the land but, it is the source and
sustenance of all laws. Its provisions are conceived in public
interest and are intended to serve public purpose.

Furthermore, it is the theory of the "Father of the English
Jurisprudence" - Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) that was reiterated by
the Apex Court in true sense. Bentham talked about the reform of the
substantive law by the way of reforming the structure of law.

1. Law in the Reformative Process

This case can be said to be a decision that leads to the reformation
of the substantive law. Bentham divided the jurisprudence into two
parts, that is, expositorial (what law is) and censorial (what law
ought to be) .Olga Tellis has shifted the focus from censorial
jurisprudence to the expositorial jurisprudence by enlarging the scope
of article 21 of the Constitution and including right to livelihood
and right to shelter as a part of right to life. Justice Chandrachud
in Para 32 of his judgment states,

An equally important facet of that right is the right to livelihood
because, no person can live without the means of living, that is, the
means of livelihood. If the right to livelihood is not treated as a
part of the constitutional right to life, the easiest way of depriving
a person of his right to life would be to deprive him of his means of
livelihood to the point of abrogation.

This view of the Hon'ble Court clearly indicates the follow up of the
Bentam's philosophy of reforming the law through its structure. The
law as defined by Bentham is, an assemblage of signs, declarative of
violation, conceived or adopted by the sovereign in a state,
concerning the conduct to be observed in a certain case by a certain
person or class of persons, who in the case in question are or are
supposed to be subject to his power .Therefore, this although focuses
on the aspect that law is certain and laid down that is, positum, but
at the same time this definition is flexible enough to be cover a set
of objectives so intimately allied and to which there would be such
continual occasion to apply the same proposition . Therefore in the
present case when Justice Chandrachud states that ,"no person can live
without means of living" ,he is applying the Bentamite jurisprudence
to reform the law laid down under article 21 and at the same time also
utilizing the flexibility of his definition of law to equate the
intimately allied occasions of life, liberty and livelihood.

2. Hedonist Utilitarianism

Olga Tellis brought the concept of Benthamite philosophy of the
Hedonist Utilitarianism. Justice Chandrachud in Para 1 states that the
petitioners form almost half the population of the city. The fact of
such a large number of pavement dwellers in question caused the
decision to fall in their favour.The principle of utility by Bentham
stated that, out of various possibilities in a given case, one must
choose that option that gives the greatest happiness to the greatest
number .
The Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 laid down the law relating
to the pavement dwellers under section 312-314. It stated many
prohibitions on the housing and depositions of various items on the
pavements by the dwellers. Justice Chandrachud while deciding this
case entirely followed the PRINCIPLE OF UTILITY as given by Bentham
and held that the end aim of the legislator should be HAPPINESS of the
people and the GENERAL UTILITY must be the guiding principle. Apex
Court by making a balance sheet between the happiness or the utility
of the slum dwellers with the aim and object of the particular
legislation came to a conclusion that justice must be done only by
giving the redressal to the poor and needy pavement dwellers. Justice
Chandarchud in Para 49 states that,

Hearing to be given to trespassers who have encroached on public
properties? To persons who commit crime? There is no doubt that the
petitioners are using pavements and other public properties for an
unauthorised purpose. But, their intention or object in doing so is
not to "commit an offence or intimidate, insult or annoy any person",
which is the gist of the offence of 'Criminal trespass' under Section
441 of the Penal Code. They manage to find a habitat in places which
are mostly filthy or marshy, out of sheet helplessness. It is not as
if they have a free choice to exercise as to whether to commit an
encroachment and if so, where. The encroachments committed by these
persons are involuntary acts in the sense that those acts are
compelled by inevitable circumstances and are not guided by choice.
Here, as elsewhere in the law of Torts, a balance has to be struck
between competing sets of values.....

Therefore, the Apex Court had drawn a balance sheet and analysed the
Happiness and utility of the petitioners and the respondents. The
Court relied upon the Pelican book in Para 56 and states,

Malnourished babies, wasted mothers, emaciated corpses in the streets
of Asia have definite and definable reasons for existing. Hunger may
have been the human race's constant companion, and 'the poor may
always be with us', but in the twentieth century, one cannot take this
fatalistic view of the destiny of millions of fellow creatures. Their
condition is not inevitable but is caused by identifiable forces
within the province of rational human control.

In the above-mentioned finding by the Hon'ble Supreme Court it is
evidently clear that the reliance was placed on the "destiny of
millions of fellow creatures". It signifies the application of the
Bentham principle of utility in the outcome of the judgment of Olga
Tellis.

Bentham's justification of his utilitarianism is founded upon four
propositions. These are as follows,

1. All agents (as agents) seek a personal good.

2. Ultimately, all self-conscious agents aim at the same goal
(irrespective of the particular context in which the particular action
is performed).

3. That same ultimate goal is always the maximization of personal
pleasure (and the avoidance of personal pain).

4. The proper role of the state is to promote the greatest aggregate
pleasure within its community.

The four commands of utility for civic society in the Bentham's
Utilitarianism, upon which the aggregate happiness depends are
security, subsistence, abundance and equality. Out of the above,
security was the most important. Subsistence, abundance and equality,
however, all depended, in Bentham's view, on the paramount directive
of security. The decision given by the Supreme Court heavily relies on
the entire four propositions given by Bentham (above-mentioned).
Justice Chandrachud in the Para 2 of the judgment lays down the
emphasis on the slum dwellers right to life and reside in any part of
the country with dignity as other citizens of the nation. He stated
that an individual can live without security but cannot live without
"subsistence" the Supreme Court in the instant case holding that the
Right to livelihood and shelter as being an important component of the
Right to Life again establishes a nexus between subsistence and right
to livelihood once again confirming the abidance of the Benthamite
principle of utility. Moreover when the court established that if the
petitioners were evicted from their dwellings, they would be deprived
of their livelihood.

The due recognition is given to the fact that the number of the
pavement dwellers was huge and it constituted almost half of the
city's population. Therefore, the test greatest aggregate happiness
for the greatest number is also fulfilled. According to Jullias
Stone , by happiness of the community Bentham meant simply the
aggregate of individual surpluses of pleasure over pain. The greatest
happiness of the greatest number states that the pleasure and the
pains of the society are to be weighed at same plane. In this case
also the pleasure of the society was upheld and also the pain of
another section of the society (slum dwellers) was brought down.
Then Bentham's principle of utility becomes the principle that we are
always to act in such a way as to give as many people as possible as
much as possible of whatever it is that they want. I think that the
interpretation in Olga Tellis preserves the essence of Bentham's
doctrine, and it has the advantage of making it independent of any
special psychological theory.

Conclusion

To conclude, the whole Benthamite principle applied by Justice
Chandrachud on behalf of all the brother Justices can be summarized in
one sentence stated in Para 46 of the judgment, Human compassion
(happiness) must soften the rough edges of justice in all situations.
Thus, it can be concluded the Supreme Court adopted the Utilitarian
Principle in terms of the pleasure and pain calculus or the hedonistic
calculus of Jermy Betham.
"Uniform Civil Code"


The mere three words and the nation breaks into hysterical jubilation
and frantic wailing. These three words are enough to divide the nation
into two categories - politically, socially and religiously.
Politically, the nation is divided as BJP, which propagates
implementation of the Uniform Civil Code (hereinafter referred to as
the UCC) and the non BJP including the Congress party, Samajwadi
party, who are against the implementation of the UCC. Socially, the
intelligentsia of the country, who analyse logically the pros and cons
of the UCC and the illiterate who have no opinion of their own and
succumb to the political pressure are at opposite poles. And,
religiously, there is a dangerous widening schism between the majority
Hindus and the minority community mostly the Muslims. Being a law
student, I would like to consider the legal implications of UCC.

I strongly support the crusade for the implementation of UCC and
homogenising the personal laws. I support it, not because of any bias,
but because it is the need of the hour. It is high time that India had
a uniform law dealing with marriage, divorce, succession, inheritance
and maintenance.

Indian case law:

Recently, the Supreme Court of India again called for a UCC. The
Supreme Court first directed the Parliament to frame a UCC in the year
1985 in the case of Mohammad Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum[1],
popularly known as the Shah Bano case. In this case, a penurious
Muslim woman claimed for maintenance from her husband under Section
125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure[2] after she was given triple
talaq from him. The Supreme Court held that the Muslim woman have a
right to get maintenance from her husband under Section 125. The Court
also held that Article 44[3] of the Constitution has remained a dead
letter. The then Chief Justice of India Y.V. Chandrachud observed
that,

"A common civil code will help the cause of national integration by
removing disparate loyalties to law which have conflicting ideologies"

After this decision, nationwide discussions, meetings, and agitation
were held. The then Rajiv Gandhi led Government overturned the Shah
Bano case decision by way of Muslim Women (Right to Protection on
Divorce) Act, 1986 which curtailed the right of a Muslim woman for
maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The
explanation given for implementing this Act was that the Supreme Court
had merely made an observation for enacting the UCC, not binding on
the government or the Parliament and that there should be no
interference with the personal laws unless the demand comes from
within.

The second instance in which the Supreme Court again directed the
government of Article 44 was in the case of Sarla Mudgal v. Union of
India[4]. In this case, the question was whether a Hindu husband,
married under the Hindu law, by embracing Islam, can solemnise second
marriage The Court held that a Hindu marriage solemnised under the
Hindu law can only be dissolved on any of the grounds specified under
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Conversion to Islam and Marrying again
would not, by itself, dissolve the Hindu marriage under the Act. And,
thus, a second marriage solemnised after converting to Islam would be
an offence under Section 494[5] of the Indian Penal Code.

Justice Kuldip Singh also opined that Article 44 has to be retrieved
from the cold storage where it is lying since 1949. The Hon’ble
Justice referred to the codification of the Hindu personal law and
held,

"Where more then 80 percent of the citizens have already been brought
under the codified personal law there is no justification whatsoever
to keep in abeyance, any more, the introduction of the ‘uniform civil
code’ for all the citizens in the territory of India."

The Supreme Court’s latest reminder to the government of its
Constitutional obligations to enact a UCC came in July 2003[6] when a
Christian priest knocked the doors of the Court challenging the
Constitutional validity of Section 118[7] of the Indian Succession
Act. The priest from Kerala, John Vallamatton filed a writ petition in
the year 1997 stating that Section 118 of the said Act was
discriminatory against the Christians as it impose unreasonable
restrictions on their donation of property for religious or charitable
purpose by will. The bench comprising of Chief Justice of India V.N.
Khare, Justice S.B. Sinha and Justice A.R. Lakshamanan struck down the
Section declaring it to be unconstitutional. Chief Justice Khare
stated that,

"We would like to State that Article 44 provides that the State shall
endeavour to secure for all citizens a uniform civil code throughout
the territory of India It is a matter of great regrets that Article 44
of the Constitution has not been given effect to. Parliament is still
to step in for framing a common civil code in the country. A common
civil code will help the cause of national integration by removing the
contradictions based on ideologies."

Thus, as seen above, the apex court has on several instances directed
the government to realise the directive principle enshrined in our
Constitution and the urgency to do so can be inferred from the same.

Secularism v/s UCC:

The spine of controversy revolving around UCC has been secularism and
the freedom of religion enumerated in the Constitution of India. The
preamble of the Constitution states that India is a "secular
democratic republic" This means that there is no State religion. A
secular State shall not discriminate against anyone on the ground of
religion. A State is only concerned with the relation between man and
man. It is not concerned with the relation of man with God. It does
not mean allowing all religions to be practiced. It means that
religion should not interfere with the mundane life of an individual.

In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India[8], as per Justice Jeevan Reddy, it
was held that religion is the matter of individual faith and cannot be
mixed with secular activities. Secular activities can be regulated by
the State by enacting a law.

In India, there exist a concept of "positive secularism" as
distinguished from doctrine of secularism accepted by America and some
European states i.e. there is a wall of separation between religion
and State. In India, positive secularism separates spiritualism with
individual faith. The reason is that America and the European
countries went through the stages of renaissance, reformation and
enlightenment and thus they can enact a law stating that State shall
not interfere with religion. On the contrary, India has not gone
through these stages and thus the responsibility lies on the State to
interfere in the matters of religion so as to remove the impediments
in the governance of the State.

Articles 25[9] and 26[10] guarantee right to freedom of religion.
Article 25 guarantees to every person the freedom of conscience and
the right to profess, practice and propagate religion. But this right
is subject to public order, morality and health and to the other
provisions of Part III of the Constitution. Article 25 also empowers
the State to regulate or restrict any economic, financial, political
or other secular activity, which may be associated with religious
practice and also to provide for social welfare and reforms. The
protection of Articles 25 and 26 is not limited to matters of doctrine
of belief. It extends to acts done in pursuance of religion and,
therefore, contains a guarantee for ritual and observations,
ceremonies and modes of worship, which are the integral parts of
religion.[11]

UCC is not opposed to secularism or will not violate Article 25 and
26. Article 44 is based on the concept that there is no necessary
connection between religion and personal law in a civilised society.
Marriage, succession and like matters are of secular nature and,
therefore, law can regulate them. No religion permits deliberate
distortion[12]. The UCC will not and shall not result in interference
of one’s religious beliefs relating, mainly to maintenance, succession
and inheritance. This means that under the UCC a Hindu will not be
compelled to perform a nikah or a Muslim be forced to carry out
saptapadi. But in matters of inheritance, right to property,
maintenance and succession, there will be a common law.

Justice Khare, in the recent case[13], said,
"It is no matter of doubt that marriage, succession and the like
matters of secular character cannot be brought within the guarantee
enshrined under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution."

The Chief Justice also cautioned that any legislations which brought
succession and like matters of secular character within the ambit of
Articles 25 and 26 is a suspect legislation. Article 25 confers right
to practice and profess religion, while Article 44 divests religion
from social relations and personal law.

The whole debate can be summed up by the judgement given by Justice
R.M. Sahai. He said,

"Ours is a secular democratic republic. Freedom of religion is the
core of our culture. Even the slightest of deviation shakes the social
fibre. But religious practices, violative of human rights and dignity
and sacerdotal suffocation of essentially civil and material freedoms
are not autonomy but oppression. Therefore, a unified code is
imperative, both, for protection of the oppressed and for promotion of
national unity and solidarity."[14]

Codification:

The biggest obstacle in implementing the UCC, apart from obtaining a
consensus, is the drafting. Should UCC be a blend of all the personal
laws or should it be a new law adhering to the constitutional mandate?
There is a lot of literature churned out on UCC but there is no model
law drafted. Many think that under the guise of UCC, the Hindu law
will be imposed on all. The possibility of UCC being only a repackaged
Hindu law was ruled out by Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee when he
said that there will be a new code based on gender equality and
comprising the best elements in all the personal laws.

The UCC should carve a balance between protection of fundamental
rights and religious dogmas of individuals. It should be a code, which
is just and proper according to a man of ordinary prudence, without
any bias with regards to religious or political considerations.
Here is an overview of the essentials of the UCC:

Marriage and divorce:

The personal laws of each religion contain different essentials of a
valid marriage. The new code should have the basic essentials of valid
marriage which shall include:

(i) The new code should impose monogamy banning multiple marriages
under any religion. Polygamy discriminates against the women and
violates their basic human rights. Thus, monogamy should be imposed,
not because it is the Hindu law, but because it adheres to Article 21
of the Constitution[15] and basic human values.

(ii) The minimum age limit for a male should be 21 years and for a
female should be 18 years. This would help in curbing child marriages.
Punishment should be prescribed for any person violating this
provision. Also, punishment for other persons involved in such an act,
like the relatives, should be prescribed which would have a deterrent
effect on the society.

(iii) Registration of marriage should be made compulsory. A valid
marriage will be said to have solemnised when the man and the woman
sign their declaration of eligibility before a registrar. This will do
away with all the confusion regarding the validity of the marriage.

(iv) The grounds and procedure for divorce should be specifically laid
down. The grounds enumerated in the code should be reasonable and the
procedure prescribed should be according to the principles of natural
justice. Also, there should be a provision for divorce by mutual
consent.

Succession and inheritance: This area throws up even more intractable
problems. In Hindu law, there is a distinction between a joint family
property and self acquired property which is not so under the Muslim
law. The Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), formed under the Hindu law, run
businesses and own agricultural lands. Under the UCC, this institution
of HUF, peculiar to the Hindus, has to be abolished. There are also
fetters imposed on the extent to which one can bequeath property by
will under the Muslim law. Considering all these, the UCC should
include:

(i) Equal shares to son and daughter from the property of the father,
whether self acquired or joint family property. There should be no
discrimination based on sex in the matters of inheritance. The
provisions of the Hindu Succession (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 1994
can be taken as guiding principles wherein the daughter of a
coparcener shall by birth become the coparcener in her own right in
the same manner as a son and have the same rights in the coparcenary
property as she would have had if she had been a son, inclusive the
right to claim by survivorship and shall be subject to same
liabilities and disabilities as the son.

(ii) Provisions for inheritance of the property of mother, which she
has self acquired or acquired through her father or relatives.

(iii) The provisions relating to will should be in consonance with the
principles of equity. There should be no limitations imposed on the
extent to which the property can be bequeathed, the persons to whom
such property can be bequeath and the donation of the property by will
for religious and charitable purpose.

(iv) The essentials of valid will, the procedure for registration and
execution of the will should be provided for.

(v) Provisions for gifts should not contain any limitations, though
essential of valid gift and gift deed should be specified.

Maintenance: The maintenance laws for the Hindus and Muslims are very
different. Apart from personal laws, a non-Muslim woman can claim
maintenance under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure. A Muslim
woman can claim maintenance under the Muslim Women (Right to
Protection on Divorce) Act, 1986. Apart from maintenance of wife,
there are also provisions for maintenance of mother, father, son and
unmarried daughter under the Hindu law. The UCC should contain the
following with regards to maintenance:

(i) A husband should maintain the wife during the marriage and also
after they have divorced till the wife remarries.

(ii) The amount of alimony should be decided on basis of the income of
the husband, the status and the lifestyle of the wife.

(iii) The son and daughter should be equally responsible to maintain
the parents. The reason for this being that if she claims equal share
of the property of her parents, she should share the duty to maintain
her parents equally.

(iv) The parents should maintain their children - son till he is
capable of earning on his own and daughter, till she gets married.

Thus based on these fundamental principles, an unbiased and fair UCC
can be framed which will be in consonance with the Constitution.

Working of UCC and the Indian scenario:

How foolproof will be the UCC? Will there be more abuse and less
obedience of UCC? Will UCC have negative effect on the society? Such
questions are bound to be raised after the implementation of the UCC.
All laws are formulated to be obeyed, but they are abused. This
doesnot mean that law should not be implemented. Similarly, there is a
great possibility of the UCC being abused, but this should not eschew
the Parliament from enacting the UCC; the social welfare and benefits
resulting from the implementation of UCC are far greater.

While explaining the reason for including Article 44 in the Directives
Principles, it was observed,

"When you want to consolidate a community, you have to take into
consideration the benefits which may accrue to the whole community and
not to the customs of a part of it. If you look at the countries in
Europe, which have a Civil Code, everyone who goes there forms a part
of the world and every minority has to submit to that Civil Code. It
is not felt to be tyrannical to the minorities."[16]

Some legal experts argue that progressive law is welcomed but a
suitable atmosphere must be created in which all sections feel secure
enough to sit together and cull out the most progressive of their
personal laws. But this can be answered by an example of Hindu law.
When the Hindu Code Bill, which covers Buddhist, Sikhs, Jains as well
as different religious denominations of Hindus, was notified, there
was a lot of protest. And the then Law Minister, Dr. Ambedkar, had
said that for India’s unity, the country needs a codified law. In a
similar fashion, the UCC can be implemented, which will cover all the
religions, whether major or minor, practiced in India and any person
who comes to India has to abide by the Code.

Not many know that a UCC exists in the small state of Goa accepted by
all communities. The Goa Civil Code collectively called Family Laws,
was framed and enforced by the Portuguese colonial rulers through
various legislations in the 19th and 20th centuries. After the
liberation of Goa in 1961, the Indian State scrapped all the colonial
laws and extended the central laws to the territory but made the
exception of retaining the Family Laws because all the communities in
Goa wanted it. The most significant provision in this law is the pre
nuptial Public Deed regarding the disposal of immovable and movable
property in the event of divorce or death. During matrimony, both
parents have a common right over the estate, but on dissolution, the
property has to be divided equally; son and daughters have the equal
right on the property. As the procedure involves compulsory
registration of marriage, this effectively checks child and bigamous
marriage.

The philosophy behind the Portuguese Civil Code was to strengthen the
family as the backbone of society by inculcating a spirit of tolerance
between husband and wife and providing for inbuilt safeguard against
injustice by one spouse against the other.

Commenting that the dream of a UCC in the country finds its
realisation in Goa, former Chief Justice of India Y.V. Chandrachud had
once expressed hope that it would one day "awaken the rest of bigoted
India."[17]

Conclusion:

The section of the nation against the implementation of UCC contends
that in ideal times, in an ideal State, a UCC would be an ideal
safeguard of citizens’ rights. But India has moved much further from
ideal than when the Constitution was written 50 years ago.

But to conclude, I would like to say that citizens belonging to
different religions and denominations follow different property and
matrimonial laws which is not only an affront to the nation’s unity,
but also makes one wonder whether we are a sovereign secular republic
or a loose confederation of feudal states, where people live at the
whims and fancies of mullahs, bishops and pundits.

[1] AIR 1985 SC 945

[2] "(1) If any person having a sufficient means neglects or refuses
to maintain- a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or b) his
legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable
to maintain itself, or c) His legitimate or illegitimate child (not
being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child
is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable
to maintain itself, or d) his father or mother, unable to maintain
himself or herself, a magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of
such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance
for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at
such monthly rate not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole, as
such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the
Magistrate mat from time to time direct: Provided that the Magistrate
may order the father of a minor female child refereed to in clause (b)
to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the
Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child,
if married, is not possessed of sufficient means."

[3] "The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform
civil code throughout the territory of India."

[4] AIR 1995 SC 153

[5] "Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in
which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the
life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and
shall also be liable to fine."

[6] John Vallamattom v. Union of India AIR 2003 SC 2902

[7] "No man having a nephew or a niece or any nearer relative shall
have power to bequeath any property to religious or charitable uses,
except by a Will executed not less than twelve months before his
death, and deposited within six months from its execution in some
place provided by law for sak\fe custody of the Will of living
persons."

[8] (1994)3 SCC 1

[9] "(1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other
provisions of this part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom
of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate
religion. (2) Nothing in this Article shall affect the operation of
any existing law or prevent the State from making any law - a)
regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other
secular activities which may be associated with religious practice; b)
providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu
religious institutions of a public character to all classes and
sections of Hindus."

[10] "Subject to public order, morality and health, every religious
denomination or any section thereof shall have a right- a) to
establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable
purposes; b) to manage its own affairs in matters of religion; c) to
own and acquire movable and immovable property; and d) to administer
such property in accordance with law."

[11] Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhut v. Commissioner of Police,
Calcutta (1984)4 SCC 522

[12] Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India AIR 1995 SC 1531
[13] John Vallamattom v. Union of India AIR 2003 SC 2902
[14] Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India AIR 1995 SC 1531

[15]"No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty
except according to procedure established by law"

[16] Constitutional Assembly Debates Volume VII pg. 547
[17] Mohammad Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum AIR 1985 SC 945