EDITORIAL
IS IT ADVISABLE TO FORMULATE COMMON CIVIL COURT IN PRESENT SCENARIO?
e welcome the recent decision of the Supreme Court ruling in favour of the collegium system for appointment of Supreme Court judges. It is a laudable step that only judges should be on the panel to decide who should be appointed to the apex court of the land. The government had referred its proposal to the Supreme Court calling for a change in the current collegium system for selecting judges. This was because, some critics of the system, had pointed out its shortcomings in the appointment of judges.
W
The recent Supreme Court ruling is a step in the right direction because there is possibility that politicians may try to squeeze in their favoured persons on the proposed NJAC, entrusted with the responsibility of selecting and appointing judges. Here it is also incumbent upon us to emphasize that only judges should have the right to appointments and even transfers of judges. This will ensure, hopefully, the impartiality and independent working of the judiciary. It was envisaged in the constitution that the operations and function of the legislature, judiciary and the executive should be separate and independent of each other in a democratic set up. This was in theory, but in actual practice, there have been stray cases of the legislature entering into the domain of the judiciary and vice versa. But on the whole, the democratic polity envisaged in the constitution and the salient
independence of three arms of democracy, has been maintained to a large measure.
succession rights but also the same liabilities fastened on the property along with the male members.
Having said this, it is surprising why the Supreme Court has invoked the constitution and asked the present government to enact a common civil code. This move may be seen as transgressing their boundaries and entering into the area of operations of the legislature.
In contrast, Muslim laws, derived from the Quran, laid down about 1437 years ago, specify that daughters should be given a share in the inheritance of their fathers. Women can own and manage their own property and wealth and the husbands have no right to force them to do anything against their own wishes.
Now coming to the common civil code, how can the judiciary decide on a common set of laws that cover the different denominations of people living in this country? It is up to the government to decide on a common civil code. Here there are a thicket of problems.
In the same manner, Christians have their own laws of inheritance.
The Hindus have their own laws of inheritance in which daughters were denied rights to inheritance. It is only in recent years that the courts ruled that daughters should also be given a share in the inheritance of their fathers. A Hindu woman or girl will have equal property rights along with other male relatives for any partition made in intestate succession after September 2005, the Supreme Court had ruled. A bench of justices R. M. Lodha and Jagdish Singh Khehar in a judgment said that under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, the daughters are entitled to equal inheritance rights along with other male siblings, which was not available to them prior to the amendment. The apex court said the female inheritors would not only have the
50 EASTERN CRESCENT NOVEMBER 2015
In such a scenario, how could a common civil code be framed? Different religions have their own personal laws which by the force of tradition have become sacrosanct, and so how could they be modified, revoked or altered to suit a particular set of people. This is a moot question. It would be tantamount to foisting the cultural and religious traditions of a dominant group on others, resulting in coercion. Furthermore, when cultural pollution has taken root and people have become hypersensitive about their cultural and religious customs, and wish to harm others for holding other views, how is it possible in such a tinderbox situation to call for altering basic laws that have been adhered to for centuries? This means that the judiciary has lobbled the ball in the government’s pavilion. It is for the ruling dispensation to decide on such a ticklish situation, which could soon turn incendiary, if any attempt is made to make all others sleep on the same Procrustean bed.