Maharashtra's public consultation on UCC raises the core question of whether a state-level Uniform Civil Code replacing religion-based personal laws on marriage, divorce, and inheritance better serves citizens' rights and gender equality.
Aaj ka motion hai: 'Maharashtra Should Implement a Uniform Civil Code Replacing Personal Laws' — yani kya Maharashtra rajya ko apne nagrik ke liye ek aisa samaan naagrik sanhita laani chahiye jo sabhi personal laws — Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Parsi — ki jagah le? Yeh ek gehri constitutional aur samajik bahas hai, aur main chahti hoon ki dono taraf se tathya aur tark ke saath is par prakash dala jaye. Ab main Counsel Aarav se nivedan karti hoon ki woh apna paksh rakhein.
My lord, main yeh kehna chahta hoon ki Constitution of India ka Article 44 — jo ki ek Directive Principle of State Policy hai — state se yeh expectation rakhta hai ki woh ek Uniform Civil Code ki taraf kadam uthaye, aur Maharashtra ke paas is constitutional aspiration ko pragmatic roop dene ka poora adhikar hai. Hamare personal laws — chahe Hindu hon, Muslim hon ya Christian — abhi bhi kaafi jagah gender inequality aur discriminatory provisions ko protect karte hain, aur ek UCC hi woh tool hai jo sabhi nagarikon ko, bina dharm ke bhed ke, ek samaan nagarik adhikar de sakta hai. Vipaksh kehta hai ki yeh dharm mein dakhal hai — lekin main poore adar ke saath kehna chahta hoon ki Article 44 ko Constitution mein dalne ka YEHI maqsad tha ki desh ek din is khichaav se upar uthe aur har nagarik ko ek saman darja mile.
My lord, main Bina, vipaksh ki taraf se hoon, aur main yeh kehna chahti hoon ki Paksh ki poori dalil ek fundamental galti par khadi hai — woh yeh maan leti hai ki personal laws sirf 'discrimination' ka zariya hain, jabki yeh laws communities ki cultural identity aur religious autonomy ki neenv hain, jinhein kisi bhi State legislature ke ek jhatke mein nahi toda ja sakta. Mere saamne di gayi verified authorities mein se koi bhi directly UCC ke state-level implementation ko support nahi karti, aur main imaandari se keh sakti hoon ki in authorities mein aisa koi provision nahi jo yeh sabit kare ki Maharashtra ko personal laws replace karne ka constitutional mandate milta hai — isliye is turn mein main 'citations: []' karungi. Vipaksh ki dalil yeh hai ki ek pluralistic society mein uniform code thopna, bina legislative competence aur community consent ke, khud ek constitutional sawaal ban jaata hai — aur yahi hum aage establish karengi.
My lord, vipaksh kehta hai ki UCC sirf Central satta ka vishay hai — lekin main yeh point seedha tod deta hoon: Article 44 ek Directive Principle hai jo poore State machinery par bhi laagu hoti hai, aur Maharashtra jaise progressive state ko apni legislative competence ke tahat personal law reforms lekar aane ka poora adhikar hai. Aur yeh bhi dhyan rahe, my lord, ki UCC ka matlab kisi ek dharm ka kanoon doosron par thopna nahi — iska matlab hai gender-just, religion-neutral civil framework jo har nagarik ko samaan adhikar deta hai. Agar hum aaj UCC ka virodh karte hain, toh hum essentially keh rahe hain ki ek aurat ke property rights aur succession rights uske dharm ke hisaab se badlengi — yeh equality ki buniyad ke khilaaf hai.
My lord, Aarav bhai ne jo bhi kaha, woh sab ek ideal duniya ki baat hai — lekin hum Maharashtra ki ground reality mein hain, jahan personal laws ki diversity ko ek statutory hammer se kuchal dena logon ki lived identity pe seedha attack hai. Main yeh maanti hoon ki equality ek constitutional value hai, lekin equality ka matlab uniformity nahi hota — alag communities ke liye alag frameworks bhi ek tarah ki substantive equality ho sakti hai. Aur jab tak koi authority — koi statute, koi binding judgment — yeh nahi kehta ki State ko personal laws replace karne ka mandate hai, tab tak yeh motion sirf ek political aspiration hai, constitutional zaroorat nahi.
Is debate mein ek taraf ka kehna tha ki Maharashtra mein Uniform Civil Code lagu karna samanta aur secular governance ki taraf ek zaroori kadam hoga — jabki doosri taraf ka kehna tha ki personal laws alag-alag communities ki saanskritik aur dharmic azaadi ki hifazat karte hain, jo ek federal, pluralist rajya mein sanjona chahiye. Main kisi ko jeeta ya haara nahi kehti — meri balanced legal suggestion yeh hai ki Maharashtra sarkaar sabse pehle ek broad-based stakeholder consultation process shuru kare, jisme sab communities ki bharpur bhagidari ho, aur constitutional maryada ke andar reform ka raasta dhundha jaaye, na ki kisi ek community par ek-taraf se kuch thopa jaaye. Ab main Maharashtra ke nagrikon se nivedan karti hoon ki aap is debate ko rate karen aur apni raay zahir karen.