Allahabad HC Asks Centre To Consider Implementing Uniform Civil Code, Calls It 'Necessity'

Justice Suneet Kumar called out to the parliament pointing that the need of the hour is to formulate a "single-family code" in order to protect interfaith couples from being "hounded as criminal."

Allahabad High Court (Image Source: AFP)

New Delhi: The Allahabad High Court on Thursday asked the Union government to look into implementing the mandate of Article 44, according to which, the "state shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) throughout the territory of India".

"The UCC is a necessity and mandatorily required today. It cannot be made 'purely voluntary' as was observed by B.R. Ambedkar 75 years back, in view of the apprehension and fear expressed by the members of the minority community," the Allahabad HC was quoted by IANS in its report.

Hearing the case of as many as 17 petitions related to interfaith marriages, the Allahabad HC directed the marriage registrar or officer of petitioners' districts to immediately register the marriage of the petitioners without waiting for approval from any competent authority regarding the matter of conversion.

Justice Suneet Kumar called out to the parliament pointing that the need of the hour is to formulate a "single-family code" in order to protect interfaith couples from being "hounded as criminal."

"The stage has reached that the Parliament should intervene and examine as to whether the country requires a multiplicity of marriage and registration laws or the parties to a marriage should be brought under the umbrella of single-family code," the Allahabad HC observed,

Appearing for the UP government, the standing counsel said that the registration of these marriages could not happen without the enquiry by the district authority because the petitioners didn't get the mandatory approval from district magistrate before converting to the faith of their partner for the purpose of marriage.

Asserting that the prior approval from district magistrate is not essential, petitioners' counsel said, "Interference by the state or by the private respondents (family members) would tantamount to encroaching upon their constitutional right to freedom, choice, life, liberty and to live life on their own terms as man and woman."

"Marriage is just an association of two persons recognized by law. There is nothing 'special' about marriage to subject it under different laws for various communities, thus erecting barriers in the free intermingling of the citizens. The petitioners herein cannot be hounded as criminals," the court observed.

(With inputs from IANS)