The recent remarks by Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court, made during a Vishwa Hindu Parishad event have ignited a significant controversy. While his support for the implementation of the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is a constitutional aspiration, his accompanying statement, “India will run as per the wishes of its majority,” raises alarming questions about the preservation of democratic and constitutional values in a diverse country.

The concept of the UCC is rooted in the vision of a just and equitable society. Enshrined in Article 44 of the Constitution, it calls for the state to strive towards uniformity in personal laws across all communities, irrespective of religion. It is an essential measure for ensuring equality, especially for those who often face systemic discrimination under existing religious personal laws. Implementing the UCC would establish a framework where individuals are governed by common legal principles in matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance and adoption, creating a more egalitarian society.

Advertisement

However, Justice Yadav’s remarks regarding majoritarianism undermine the spirit in which the UCC is envisioned. His statement is concerning on multiple levels, as it conveys an implicit endorsement of exclusionary governance. By this flawed logic, Muslim-majority countries or White-majority nations could justify actions disregarding minority rights. Is that the precedent we wish to set? India’s constitutional identity is based on pluralism. The strength of a democracy lies in its ability to protect and empower minorities, not marginalise them under the pretext of majority will.

The implementation of the UCC, while constitutionally mandated, must be carried out in a manner that reinforces trust among all communities. The Constitution does not envision the UCC as a tool for coercion but as an instrument for social justice, achieved through consensus and dialogue. Framing it as a majoritarian demand undermines its true purpose and risks alienating sections of society who may view it as an encroachment on their cultural and religious autonomy. The language of imposition is incompatible with the constitutional principles of fraternity and secularism.

Justice Yadav’s comments, made in a public forum associated with a religious organisation, also raise questions about the expected impartiality of the judiciary. Judges, as custodians of justice, are bound by the constitutional ethos of fairness and equality. Public statements that appear to favour one community over another, or advocate for governance by the majority will erode public confidence in judicial neutrality. The judiciary must rise above the socio-political fray and serve as a bulwark against divisive tendencies.

The historical context of India’s secularism provides a poignant counterpoint to such remarks. The framers of the Constitution rejected theocracy and majoritarian rule, opting instead for a system that balances democracy with the protection of minority rights. Secularism in India is unique: it does not imply the exclusion of religion from public life but mandates equal respect for all religions. The judiciary plays a vital role in upholding this delicate balance and any deviation from this principle is a step towards eroding the secular fabric of the country.

Majoritarianism, as implied in Justice Yadav’s statement, is antithetical to the ethos of democracy. Democracy is not simply the rule of the majority; it is the rule of law, the protection of minority rights, and the pursuit of justice for all. India’s diversity is not a challenge to be subdued but a strength to be celebrated. The argument that a nation should be governed by the majority’s wishes overlooks the inherent risks of homogenisation in a pluralistic society.

The UCC, when implemented correctly, can be a unifying force rather than a divisive one. It can address the patriarchal elements embedded in many personal laws, thus advancing gender justice. For instance, discriminatory practices such as triple talaq, unequal inheritance rights, and restrictions on adoption can be remedied by a progressive UCC. However, this vision will only materialise if the process of implementation is inclusive, transparent and respectful of cultural sensibilities.

Justice Yadav’s remarks also bring to light the critical importance of the judiciary’s role in fostering social harmony. The judiciary is not only an adjudicator of disputes but also a moral compass that guides the nation through its most contentious issues. By making statements that could be construed as polarising, members of the judiciary risk undermining the public’s trust in their ability to adjudicate fairly. In a society as diverse as India, judicial impartiality is not merely an ideal but a necessity for maintaining the rule of law.

It is also essential to address the broader implications of normalising majoritarian rhetoric. If India were to adopt the logic implied in Justice Yadav’s statement, it would set a dangerous precedent internationally. Would we, as a country, condone similar majoritarian governance in other countries, even if it meant the persecution of Hindus, Christians or other minorities? The answer is unequivocally “No”. India’s moral authority on the global stage has always rested on its commitment to diversity, justice and human rights. Any deviation from these principles would undermine its standing and weaken its voice in advocating for the rights of oppressed communities worldwide.

India’s path forward must be guided by the principles of its Constitution. The UCC, as envisioned by the framers, must be a step toward greater inclusivity and justice, not a tool for asserting majoritarian dominance. It should emerge as a consensual framework that accommodates India’s diverse cultural fabric while upholding individual rights. Achieving this requires sensitivity, consultation and an unwavering commitment to the constitutional values of equality and fraternity.

The remarks by Justice Yadav, while perhaps made with the intent to support the UCC, risk undermining the principles they seek to uphold. They highlight the urgent need for public officials, particularly those in the judiciary, to exercise restraint and uphold the highest standards of constitutional propriety. In a time when the nation faces increasing polarisation, it is incumbent upon its institutions to act as beacons of unity and justice. India’s strength lies in its ability to embrace diversity while fostering a sense of shared identity. The UCC can and should be a part of this journey, but its implementation must reflect the pluralistic ethos of the Constitution.

(The writers are legal professionals and hold Master’s degrees in Law.)