New Delhi, Oct. 12: The Supreme Court today told the Centre to explore the possibility of a uniform civil code "if you want to" while directing it to take a quick decision on bringing the Christian divorce law on a par with that for other communities.
Solicitor-general Ranjit Kumar sought three weeks' time to place the government's views on amending the Divorce Act, 1869, which applies only to Christians, but refrained from commenting on the court's prodding on a uniform civil code.
The Divorce Act mandates a two-year waiting period for the grant of divorce through mutual separation whereas the time limit is only one year for other communities.
Enacting a uniform civil code means replacing the various communities' distinct personal laws by a common legislation governing individuals' rights relating to marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption and maintenance.
Article 44 of the Constitution says the State "shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India". Political and religious sensitivities, however, have stemmed any such possibility.
The reference to a uniform civil code by the bench of Justices Vikramjit Sen and Shiv Kirti Singh came as they asked Kumar to come out with a clear stand on the discrepancy between various divorce laws.
"What is happening? Why is this happening? It is total confusion.... The petitioner is just seeking that the Christian law should be on the same platform as that of the Hindu law as their (Christians') personal law prescribes a minimum of two years whereas others have one year," Justice Sen, who headed the bench, told Kumar.
"If you want to have a uniform civil code, have it. You want to follow the uniform civil code, follow it. But you must take a decision soon."
The BJP has since its Jana Sangh days been clamouring for a uniform civil code but has in recent years toned down the shrillness that marked the demand in the 1990s.
Today's apex court directive followed the Centre's continued failure to respond to a notice issued to it on March 23 on a public interest plea moved by Albert Anthony, a Delhi-based Christian.
Anthony has challenged the constitutional validity of Section 10A(1) of the Divorce Act, which prescribes a minimum two-year period of separation for Christian couples before they can file a suit for divorce by mutual consent.
He has contended that the provision amounts to "hostile discrimination" against and "oppression" of Christians since Hindus and Parsis can file a divorce suit after a year of living separately.
Anthony has cited how, in Saumya Ann Thomas vs Union of India, 2010, Kerala High Court had held Section 10A(1) of the Divorce Act to be "unconstitutional", ruling that it violated Articles 14 (equality before law) and 21 (protection of life and personal liberty).
Karnataka High Court had agreed with that ruling in Shiv Kumar vs Union of India and Others, 2014.
But, Anthony has argued, the benefit of the two judgments is being denied to Christians in other states. He has sought a direction to the Centre to amend the act, reducing the mandatory period of separation to one year.
Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (applicable if the spouses belong to different communities), Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and Section 32B of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936, prescribe just a year's statutory period of separation for divorce by mutual consent.
