(The Law Commission has decided to solicit views from the Indian public on the idea of a uniform civil code. It has also invited religious and social bodies to share their perspectives on the same. The crux of the debate is whether the discourse for this 'reform' should involve religious leaders and other such groups, or be limited to the legislature and the judiciary. Is there a line? If yes, where should it be drawn? This article argues that the law commission's move is antithetical to a secular state. Read the counterview here.)
In 1978, when 62-year-old Shah Bano was divorced by her husband who was an affluent Indore lawyer, she began a battle to get 200 rupees as maintenance. The husband invoked Shariat law to contend that Islam did not sanction maintenance for a divorced woman beyond the 3-month iddat period. Through the many-layered processes, her husband dragged on the case till 1985 when the Supreme Court granted her a favourable verdict.
By that time, it was no longer about an elderly abandoned spouse and the 179 odd rupees that she won as maintenance in the High Court. Shah Bano’s cause had polarised a nation. To one section she became the torchbearer for the fight for gender justice and a uniform civil code and to another, she was a Trojan Horse used by the State to penetrate the hitherto impregnable fort of Personal Laws.