The God Who Failed: An Assessment of Jawaharlal Nehru's Leadership

by Madhav Godbole

Reference may be made to the repeated pronouncements of the Supreme Court that early steps may be taken to formulate a uniform civil code. In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (AIR 1994 SC 1918), the court upheld the legislative power of Parliament to reform personal laws and urged the government to enact a uniform civil code to promote national integration. The court regretted that Article 44 had remained a dead letter. In a case where a marriage solemnized under one personal law was sought to be dissolved under another personal law after conversion of one partner, the court dissolved the dissolution and again urged the need for a uniform civil code (Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India, AIR 1995 SC 1531). In Pannalal Bansilal Pitti v. State of A.P. (1996(2) SCC 498) the court favoured a gradual reform towards bringing about uniformity, preferably from within the community. In the famous Ahmad Khan v. Shah Banu case (AIR 1985 SC 945), when the court granted maintenance under the Criminal Procedure Code, Parliament enacted the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986 to annul the court’s decision. In (July 2003) the Christian Bequests case, the court held section 118 of the Indian Succession Act 1925 unconstitutional because it imposed restrictions only on Christians. The court said that marriage and succession laws could not be saved under the right to profess and propagate religion and again stressed the need for a uniform civil code. (Kashyap 2009; p.392)