Document Sample
                                                                Prof. S.D. Sharma
        Uniform reflects equality, similarity and perpetuity, in every spare of
life. It means everyone is equal in every way and everyone is equal before
the law. Uniform denotes equality. Uniform civil code means equal
principle of rule of law for the personal affairs of human beings. Equality is
the greatest craving of all human beings at all points of time. It is the means
of peace, tranquillity, fraternity, brotherhood, cooperation and co-existence.
Equality demands uniformity in the every spare of life. In the democratic
pattern of the society everyone is equal before the law within the territory of
India. There is nothing special in favour of any individual in the society of
rule of law. It provides the tolerance capacity in the nature of human beings.
Tolerance capacity is the source of peaceful enjoyment of life. Peaceful life
demands the natural and spiritual quality in the activities of human beings.
Thus uniform civil code is a way of dispensation of justice for the welfare
and strengthening of Indian society. It is a legal norm for the smooth and
peaceful running of the society. In the most of the countries of the world
there is a uniform civil code like – France, Germany and Italy etc. However,
in India most of the laws are codified commonly and uniformly for all the
citizens of India. But only few areas in Muslim law are un-codified like
marriage, divorce, succession and maintenance etc. Hence, it is the
Constitutional duty of the state to enact the personal law of all the
communities of society. The Indian society is a complex, multicultural, multi
religious, multi-linguistic, and multiregional. But the character and nature
of the Indian society is secular and socialistic. Our national character is
Sovereign, socialistic, Secular Democratic Republic. State is bound to
provide to all the citizens social, economic and political justice, liberty of
thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; equality of status and
opportunity. Uniform civil code is one of the social requirement for
achieving the aforesaid constitutional goals and objectives. These principles
    Faculty of Law, Assam University, Silchar.
of Constitutional goals demand the uniformity in the legislation within the
territory of India.

       Uniform and equal are the synonymous words of equality. It is related
to the testamentary gift to two or more, “equally,” or equally to be divided,
or in equal shares, or equally amongst them, or to be distributed in joint and
equal proportions.1 The word civil is derived from the Latin word “Civil”
meaning a citizen. The word “civil” when used as an adjective to “law,” has
been defined in the Oxford Dictionary & Thesaurus (seventh Impression
2006, 123-124) as that which pertains to the private rights and remedies of a
citizen as distinguished from criminal political system. The word political
belongs or pertains to the state, its government and public, civil policy or
pertaining to the science or art of the politics”. In Stroud’s Judicial
Dictionary, the meaning of the expression “civil proceeding” is given as
“process for the recovery of individual right or redress of individual wrong”.
The meaning of the word “political” as given in Oxford Dictionary &
Thesaurus (seventh Impression 2006 at pages no 573) does not rule out the
possibility of a political right being also considered as a civil right. In every
democratic country the right of franchise is considered to be a very valuable
right and the exercise of the right results in electing members to legislative
bodies, which have political power. The nature of the right is essentially of
civil character.2 Code reflects the system of signals and conduct of ethics.
Thus the Uniform Civil Code is a normative legal concept based on equality,
fraternity and unity of India. It is a legal code of conduct for performing
obligatory guidelines in the personal and domestic affairs of the life by the
human beings.

       The doctrine of Uniform Civil Code is unequivocally based on
equality, equity, similarity, coexistence and tolerance. This is related to
natural as well as spiritual aspects of human existence. On the one hand,
human being, as part of nature, is expected to respect and accommodate the
laws nature within his/her life and accept the status of other human beings in
equal terms derived from human nature relationship. On the other hand a
spiritual dimension is to this relational network. However nature relationship
gathers diverse spiritualistic nuances in traditional religion discovers. Within
the domain of spirituality every human being is conceivable as spiritually
equal. The vedantic teaching of the same divine Atman in all beings
(integrally and inalienably) follows from it. The concept of uniform as a
legal concept is explicable also in terms of philosophical perspective. This
philosophical concept of equality and co existence was adopted and accepted
by the Supreme Court of India.3

        Equality has been and is the single greatest craving of all human
beings at all points of time. It has inspired many great thinkers and
philosophers. All religious and political schools of thought swear by it,
including the Hindu religious thought, if one looks in to it ignoring the later
crudities and distorations.4 Equality postulates not merely legal equality but
it is a source of practical peace and tranquillity. Process of peaceful
enjoyment of life is based on the tolerance capacity of human being in the
intolerance elements of body. Tolerance is a virtue feeling of general
masses. Intolerance is a evil in the individual. Thus the effect of tolerance on
the intolerance is based on “Generalia Specialia bus derogant”. It means
the overriding effect of tolerance is on the intolerance. In this reference John
Rawls rightly said that the question of tolerating the intolerant is directly
related to that of the stability of a well ordered society regulated by the two
principles. It is from the position of equal citizenship that persons join the
various religious associations and it is from this position that they should
conduct their discussions with each other. Citizens in a free society should
not think one another incapable of a sense of justice unless this is necessary
for the sake of equal liberty itself. If an intolerant sect appears in a well
ordered society, the others should keep in mind the inherent stability of their
institutions. The liberties of the intolerant may persuade them to belief in
freedom. This persuasion works on the psychological principle that those
whose liberties are protected by and who benefit from a just Constitutional
will, other things equal, acquire an allegiance to it over a period of time. So
even if an intolerant sect should arise, provided that it is not so strong
initially that it can impose its will straightway, or does not row so rapidly
that the psychological principle has no time to take hold, it will tent to lose
its intolerance and accept liberty of conscience. This is the consequence of
the stability of just institution”.5 The above ideology of a great jurist proves
the essential requirement of uniformity through the tolerance process in the
just society. Legal uniformity requires the Uniform Civil Code in democratic
society of equals.

Uniform Civil Code and the Constitutional Provisions- A good and
virtuous Constitutionalism having moral foundation protects not only
fundamental freedoms but also creates a bridge between conflicting
interests.6 The Indian Constitution secures the balance of interests between
the conflicting interests. It is the Supreme law of the land for providing
every kind of constitutional remedy to the needy and unhealthy persons. To
secure the code of Uniformity for all Indian citizens within the territory of
India is the Constitutional medical mandate for the state. It is the obligatory
duty of the state to frame the equal code for all citizens.

Constitutional Debate on Uniform civil Code- In the Constitution
Assembly during the debate many members were in favour of uniform civil
code for the citizens. In this context, Shri K.M. Munshi argued that We are
going to consolidate and unify our personal law; from what may be called
social relations are from the right of parties as regards inheritance or
succession. What have these things got to do with religion? I really fail to
understand.7 At the time of this debate, the Hindu code Bill was pending
before the legislatures. Shri K.M. Munshi took support of this bill in favour
of uniform civil code and said that “......If one looks at Manu and
Yagnvalkya and all the rest of them, I think most of the provisions of the
new bill will run counter to their injunctions. But after all we are advancing
society. We are in stage where we must unify and consolidate the nation by
every means without interfering with religious practices”.8 This argument of
the member of the Constitutional maker was in support of the importance
and need of Uniform Civil Code for the unity and integrity of the Indian

            (I)    Argument of the Constitutional Debate was based on
                   World civilization-         The founding father of the
                   Constitution said nowhere in the advance Muslim
                   countries the personal law of each minority has been
                   recognized as so sacrosanct as to prevent the enactment
                   of a civil code. Take for instance, Turkey and Egypt. No
      minority in these countries is permitted to have such
      rights.9 When the Shariat Act was passed or when certain
      laws were passed in the central legislature in the old
      regime, the Khojas and cutchi memons were highly
      dissatisfied.10   Then, they followed certain Hindu
      customs; for generations since they had done so. They did
      not want to conform to the Shariat and yet by a
      legislation of the central legislature certain Muslim
      members felt that Sharait law should be enforced upon
      the whole community carried their point. The Khojas and
      Cutchi Memons most unwillingly had to submit to it.
      Where were the rights of minority than? When one want
      to consolidate a community and not to the customs of a
      part of it.11 Mr K.M. Munshi told that if we will look at
      the countries of the Europe which have a Civil Code, we
      will find that everyone who goes there from any part of
      the world and every minority has to submit to the civil

       Therefore, when there is mutual impact of two
civilizations upon each other, it is obvious that there is mutual
influence as well. If there is a determined opposition, or if there
is a strong opposition by any section of the community, it
would be unwise on the part of the legislators of the country to
attempt to ignore it. Thus, it can be said that after the healthy
and fruitful debate in the parliament, there is nothing to prevent
the parliament of India from passing a uniform civil code.

      In European countries like- France, Germany and Italy
there are Muslim, Hindu, Catholics, Christians and Jews;
however, there is a uniform civil code. There is a single system
of law. Today even in the public affairs of other countries, if
they have property in the continent of Europe where the
German civil code or the French civil code obtains, the people
are governed by the law of the place in very many respects.
Therefore it is incorrect to say that we are invading the domain
             of religion.13 on the instance of European civilized countries
             there are all possibilities that India may precede for the
             codification of Uniform civil code.
                   Uniform civil code is on same track as other Uniform
                   laws in India- The first attempt by the Britishers was
                   made for the codification of different laws in India by the
                   charter Act 1833. According to the provisions of this
                   charter the Law commissions were established in India
                   for the codification of different laws. After the
                   recommendations of Law Commission, number of laws
                   were enacted by the legislature e.g. Indian Panel code
                   1860, Indian Succession Act 1865, Indian contract Act
                   1872, the Transfer of Property Act 1882, Code of civil
                   Procedure 1859 and the Indian Evidence Act 1872 etc.
                   The sequence of codification of laws is continuing in
                   independent India within the frame work of Indian
                   Constitution. Art 44 of the constitution provides the
                   codification of Uniform civil code for Indian Citizens
                   within the territory of India.14

       At the time of the Constituent Assembly debate the provision of
uniform civil code was opposed by Mr Hussain Immam, Mahbood Ali Baig
Sahib Bahadur, Mr Mohamad Ismail Sahib and Naziruddin Ahamad
members of Assembly. Their submission was that a proviso should be added
in the draft Constitution. The provision of that proviso was that “the personal
law of any community which will be guaranteed by the statute should not be
made except with the previous approval of the community ascertained in
such manner as the Union legislature may determine by law.” 15 Another
argument was that “the personal law of any community which will be
guaranteed by the statute shall not be changed except with the previous
approval of the community ascertained in such manner as the Union
legislature may determine by law.”

       At last Dr B. R. Ambedkar gave the answer of the whole debate and
said that “I must confess that I was very much surprised on the opposition
statement, for the simple reason that we have in this country a Uniform Code
of laws covering almost every aspect of human relationship. We have a
Uniform and complete criminal code operating throughout the country,
which contained in the Penal code and criminal Procedure Code. We have
the law of transfer of property, which deals with property relations and
which is operative throughout the country. Then there are the Negotiable
Instruments Acts; and I can cite innumerable enactments which would prove
that this country has practically a Civil Code, uniform in its content and
applicable to the whole of the country. The only provision of the Civil law
has not been able to invade so far as marriage and succession. It is this little
corner which we have not been able to invade so far and it is the intention of
those who desire to have as part of the constitution to bring about the
change. Therefore, the argument whether we should attempt such thing
seems to me somewhat misplaced for the simple reason that we have, as a
matter of fact, covered the whole lot of the field which is covered by a
Uniform Civil Code in this country. It is therefore too late now to ask the
question whether to do it.16

       Ordinarily the Constitutional debate of Uniform Civil Code was in
favour of the codification of personal law in India. Founding father of the
Constitution Dr B.R. Ambedkar was also in favour of the uniform civil code.
The main emphasis of the debate was that every law in India is in a form of
codification except the personal law and in other countries the personal is
also in codified form. Hence, there is no wrong to codify the personal law. In
this way Constituent Assembly controverter the amendment motion and
passed Article 44 as a part of Indian Constitution. Constitution Assembly
debate proves that all the laws have been codified in India, however,
personal laws are still not codified; this should be codified at the earliest.

Constitutional Directives for Uniform Civil Code and Judicial
Approach- Article 44 of the Indian Constitution provides the provision for
the Uniform Civil Code. It is a directive principle of state policy. According
to the Article 37 of the Constitution, this cannot be enforced by the Court,
but the principles therein laid down are nevertheless fundamental in the
governance of the country and it should be the duty of the state to apply
these principles in making laws. Although this provision is a directive in
nature, however, in Constituent Assembly Prof Sibban lal Saxena expressed
his views in favour of the implementation of directive principles that “after a
period of ten years these directive principles of state policy become the
fundamental rights of the people and shall be enforceable any Court.”17,
Now, 58 years have been lapsed after the enforcement of the Constitution.
But the government of India had not enforced the mandate of Article 44. In
this context, the Supreme Court of India gave the verdict in favour of the
implementation of the Constitution.18

          Prof Saxena further said that “the chapter of the directive principle
is not merely a chapter of pious wishes, but a chapter containing great
principles. This chapter lays down the principles which will govern the
policy of the state in which, therefore, will ensure to the people of country
the realization of the great ideals laid down in the preamble.” On the basis of
the arguments of the Prof saxena it can be said that Art 44 as directive
principal is a great ideal. It can be enforced with the preamble of the
Constitution. Therefore, It is the Constitutional duty of the state to codify the
uniform civil code for the unity and integrity of the nation. In support of this
argument of prof saxena it is germane and apt to say that the directive
principal of the state policy is the supplementary and the complimentary of
the fundamental right of the Indian constitution. Thus the Art 44 can be
enforced by the state.

       Supreme Court has also been consistently adopted in Unnikrishan J. P.
V. State of A.P.19 that the fundamental rights and directive principles are
supplementary and complementary to each other and that the provisions in
part III should be interpreted having regard the preamble and the directive
principles of state policy. On the same line Sardar Vallabh Bhai patel also
described that both rights mentioned in part III and part IV are fundamental
rights.20 in this support Granville Austine said that part III and part IV are
two wheels of a charuit.21 Justice Chandrachud CJI (as he then was)
observed in Minerva Mills v Union of India22 that “those rights (fundamental
rights) are not an end in themselves but are the means to an end. The end is
specified in part IV of the Constitution.
       On the basis of the importance of the fundamental aspect of directive
principles of state policy, the apex court of India considered the necessity of
uniform civil code for Indian citizens. In Mohd Ahamad v Shah Bano
Begam23 Constitutional bench of the Supreme Court through Chandrachud
CJI laid down that it is also the matter of regret that Art 44 of our
Constitution has remained a dead letter. There is no evidence of any official
activity for framing a common Civil Code for the country. A belief seems to
have gained ground that it is for the Muslim community to take a lead in the
matter of reforms of their personal laws. A common civil code will help the
cause of national integration by removing disparate loyalties to laws which
have conflicting ideologies. Court further said that “we understand the
difficulties involves in bringing persons of different faiths and persuasions
on a common platform. But, a begging has to be made if the Constitution is
to have any meaning.24 Dr Tahir Mohmood has made a powerful plea for
framing a uniform civil code for all citizens of India. He said in pursuance of
the goal of secularism, the state must stop administering religion based on
personal laws.25 He also made appeal to the Muslim community to display
by their conduct a correct understanding of Islamic concept on marriage and

       In Mohamad Ahmad khan27 case Supreme Court held that sec 125 of
Cr.P.C. for the purpose of maintenance, will apply on all the Indian citizens.
This was the judicial attempt to apply the laws on all the citizens on
common basis. However, this attempt was nullified by the parliament by
enacting the Muslim Women (protection of rights on Divorce) Act 1986.
Again the judiciary in Danial latifi v union of India28 interpreted this Act in
the light of Sec 125 of Cr.P.C. This interpretation of the Supreme Court had
strengthened the ideology of the necessity of the uniform civil court in India
and implementation of all the existing laws uniformly without the
discrimination of cast, creed and religion.

      A clear and fruitful law for the enactment of Common Civil Code was
laid down by the Supreme Court of India in Smt Sarla mudgal, President
Kalyani v union of India29 in this case Justice Kuldip singh said that, “the
successive government till date have been wholly remiss in their duty of
implementing the Constitutional mandate under Art 44 of the Constitution of
India. We therefore, request the government of India through the Prime
Minister of the country to have a fresh look at Art 44 of the Constitution of
India and Endeavour to secure for the citizens a Uniform civil code
throughout the territory of India.” Justice R.M. Sahay in his concurring
judgement observed that the government may also consider feasibility of
appointing a committee to enact the conversion of Religion Act. This would
go a long way to solve the problem and pave the way for a unified civil

       Unfortunately in Lily Thomas v Union of India30 Supreme Court in
real sense did not follow the decision of Sarla Mudgal 31 and observed that
any direction for the enforcement of Art 44 of the Constitution could not
have been issued by only one of judge in sarla mudgal’s case. In fact, the
issue of Uniform Civil Code was not directly involved in the Sarla Mudgal’s
case.32 however justice Sahai in his separate but concurring judgement
referred to the necessity for Uniform civil Code and said “-------- the
desirability of Uniform Civil Code can hardly be doubted. But it can
concretize only when social climate is properly built up by elite of the
society, statement amongst leaders who instead of gaining personal mileage
rise above and awaken the masses to accept the change.” He further said that
the issue should be entrusted to the Commission which may examine the
same in consultation with the Minorities’ Commission.

       In Lily Thomas33 finally Supreme Court observed that this court has
no power to give directions for the enforcement of the Directive Principles
of State policy as detailed in chapter IV of the Constitution which includes
Article 44, because Directive Principles are not justice able rights. This
observation of the Court is not correct, because it is against the spirit of
Constitutional Assembly debate of Article 37 (Draft Article 29) of the
Constitution.34 Although according to the provision of first paragraph of Art
37 of the DPSP, shall not be enforceable by any court, however, according
to second part of Art 37, the principles laid down in DPSP are nevertheless
fundamental in governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the state
to apply these principles in making laws. When government become inactive
to make the laws for applying these principles, in such circumstances these
principles can be enforced by the Court.
       Judiciary has paramount power to give mandatory order or direction
to the government for the implementation of DPSP. Thus again Supreme
Court of India directed to the government of India in Johan Vallamttom v
Union of India.35 that the need for parliament to enact a Uniform Civil code
to govern personal laws of all religious groups. It is necessary to promote
national integration. Court further said that there is no necessary connection
between “religion and personal laws” in civilized society. Dealing with
question of uniform Civil Code, the chief justice of India lamented the fact
that parliament is such to bring in such legislation despite the Constitutional
provision. He said “it is matter of regret that Article 44 of the Constitution
has not been given effect. Parliament is still to step for framing a common
Civil Code in the country.”

       The basic purpose of Uniform Civil Code as prescribed by the Indian
Constitution under Art 44 is to provide dispensation of justice, equality of
status, opportunity, social justice and fraternity to the people of India. This
can be achieved by equal principles of law for all the citizens. In S.R.
Bommai v Union of India36 Supreme Court Said the concept of equality is
based on the secular structure of India. It is a part of the fundamental legal
system of the country and basic structure of the political system, is to secure
its people socio-economic needs essential for man’s excellence with material
and moral prosperity and political justice. Secularism is a way of dignified
life and foundation of distributive justice in democratic system. Distributive
justice is based on the principle of equal distribution of wealth and goods
among equals.37 In wide sense the meaning of distribution of justice is to
distribute honours or money or other things that fall to be divided among
those who have a share in the Constitution.38 This share can be achieved by
all the Indian citizens, whether they are male or female, Hindu or Muslim,
Christian or parse etc.

Implementation Issue of Uniform Civil Code- After the decision of Johan
Vallamattom39 of the apex court again the debate of Uniform Civil code has
been started in India that whether Art 44 of the Constitution should be
implemented by the Parliament or not? Answer to this question can be given
on the basis of Constitution Assembly debate of Art 44. In this regard, Dr
Ambedkar said that “up to 1935 the north-west frontier province was not
subject to the Shariat law. It followed the Hindu law in the matter of
succession and in other matters, so much so that it was in 1939 that the
Central legislature had to come into the field and to abrogate the application
of the Hindu law to the Muslim of the North-West frontier province and to
apply the Shariat law to them.39

       Dr Ambedkar further explained that apart from the North-West
Frontier Province up till 1937 in the rest of India, in various parts such as the
united provinces, the central provinces and Bombay, the Muslim to a large
extent were governed by the Hindu law in succession. In order to bring them
on the plane of uniformity with regard to the other Muslims who observed
the Shariat law, the legislature had to intervene in 1937 and to pass an
enactment applying the shariat law to the rest of India. North Malabar the
Marumakka thayam law applied to all-not only Hindu’s but also Muslims. It
is to be remembered that the Murumakkathayam law is a matriarchal form of
law and not a Patriarchal form of law.40 This practice was continuing till the
date of enforcement of Indian Constitution. Therefore it is germane to say
that Uniform Civil code should be enacted in the interest of Indian citizens
and integrity of the nation.

       A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court on 22nd October 2008
observed that legislation for setting up bodies at Central and regional levels
to regulate, control and supervise Muslim marriage and divorce was the need
of the hour.

      The Bench of Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Harun –Ul-Rashid
while passing a verdict in a matrimonial case involving a Muslim couple,
said an effective system should be introduced for protecting the Muslim
society and women from “indiscreet marriage and divorce.” The court
observed that through polygamy was allowed in the strict sense by Islam,
there was no system in India to supervise or control such indiscreet marriage
and divorce.

      Going by Koranic verses, permission to marry more than one woman,
but not more than four, was given at a time when there were lots of orphans,
widows and captives of war who were unable to maintain a dignified life.
Polygamy was allowed then due to unavoidable circumstances. In fact, the
practice was discouraged by imposing stringent conditions.

       The court observed that even after 15th century, some people of the
community seemed to be very particular in following the practice, unmindful
of whether such circumstances existed or not. They entered into more than
one marriage, mostly for their personal pleasure. The court said the
polygamy was unlawful in the country. It called for moral strength, if nor
religious factor, to eradicate from among the Muslims. The court pointed out
that in Pakistan, Muslim family law regulated polygamy and provided for an
arbitration council.41

          Conclusion and Suggestions- Uniform Civil Code is a secular
provision of Constitution. It makes clear distinction between religion and
personal law. Religion is guaranteed by Article 25; however, Uniform Civil
Code for the purpose of codification of all the personal laws is prescribed
under Art 44 of the Constitution. Therefore, secular character of the uniform
Civil Code could not be mixed with any religious sets, domination and
religion. In fact, the encroachment of religion in the secular activities is
strictly prohibited. Secularism is one of the basic features of the
Constitution. All are equal and should be treated equally under the provision
of law. Equality is the Constitutional goal and fundamental law of the land.
Thus it is clear that Uniform Civil Code is a secular concept of
Constitutional provision. The following suggestions may be considered to
enact the Uniform Civil Code as a part of dispensation of justice for all
Indian citizens.

    1. Muslim leaders, Social and political scientist should think in the
       welfare of the Indian community. They should think on the line of
       the enactment of uniform civil code. All the equal laws should be
       enacted for all Indians and should be implemented without the
       discrimination of sex, religion, race, cast, and place of birth or any of
2. Social climate should be properly built up by the social reformer,
    statesmen, leaders and right thinking people of India for the
    codification of all the personal laws in India.

3. Harmonious construction should be made by the legislative reformer
   and balance of interest approach should be adopted by the law
   makers in the interest of Indian society. Personal mileage and gaining
   should be avoided by the policy makers and reformers of the country
   especially in sensitive societal areas.

4. Government of India should create a healthy, favourable and peaceful
   environment to codify the Uniform Civil Code.

5. Uniform Civil Code should be enacted by the consent of minority
   communities. For the purpose of achieving this goal it is the duty of
   all sects of the society to create harmonious environment for the
   integrity and unity of India.

6. In the first stage only some parts of the personal laws should be
    codified by the appropriate legislature like- Succession, Adoption
    and Guardianship etc.

7. In the second stage after analyzing the reaction of the first stage, there
    should be an attempt to create favourable environment for the
    codification of marriage, divorce and maintenance etc for all citizens.

8. The second stage will be most sensitive part of the Uniform Civil
    Code; therefore this should be entrusted to the law Commission,
    which may examine the same in consultation with minority

9. Professor Shibban Lal Saxena member of the Constituent Assembly
    said that after the ten years of the enforcement of the Constitution,
    the Directive Principles of State Policy shall become the fundamental
    rights of the people and shall be enforceable by the High Court and
      the Supreme Court through the decisions and parliament by a suitable
      legislation. This should be implemented.

   10.Art 44 as directive principles of state policy should be enforced by
      the court of law with the reformative and welfare judicial approach of
      the harmonious construction of Art 14, 21 and 25 of the fundamental

   11.It is also the duty of people’s representative in the republic
      democracy to enact the welfare legislation according to its rationale
      argued for by the constitution makers. Uniform Civil Code is one of
      the fruitful and benevolent will of the Constitution makers.

   12.The Directive Principles of the State Policy and Fundamental rights
      are complimentary and supplementary to each other. This judicial
      approach should be continued for the purpose of the interpretation of
      Art 44 of the Constitution.

Notes and References-

  1. Bakshi’s (2008) The Lexicon, Ashoka Law House, New Delhi P.977

  2. Ibid, at page 554, Keshav Gupta v Ghyur Ali Khan AIR 1959 All 607,
     at 609, ILR (1959) 2 ALL 437: 1959 All L J 727.

  3. Schedule Cast and schedule tribes Officers Welfare Council v State of
     Utter Pradesh AIR 1997 S C 1451.

  4. Indra Sawhney v Union of India AIR 1993 SC 477.

  5. John Rawls (2005) A theory of justice, Universal law Publishing Co.
     Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi P.219.

  6. Dr L.M. Singhvi (2007) Constitution of India Vol 1, Modern Law
     Publications, New Delhi P. 24.

  7. CAD Vol VII P. 547.

  8. Ibid.
9. Sri K. M. Munshi, CAD Vol VII P. 547.




13.Ibid P. 550.

14.Article 44 of the Indian constitution was Article 35 of the draft

15.CAD Vol VII Pp. 540, 541 & 543.

16.CAD Vol VII Pp. 550 and 551.

17.Ibid P. 482.

18.Sarla Mudagal President Kalyani v Union of India AIR 1995 SC1531
   and Johan Vallamttom v Union of India (2003) 6 SCC 611.

   19.    AIR 1993 SC 2178.

   20.    Ibid at paragraph 138.

   21.    Ibid P. 2230.

   22.    AIR 1980 SC 1789.

   23.    AIR 1985 SC 945, (1985) 2SCC 556.

   24.    Ibid, paragraph 32.

   25.    Tahir Mohamood, (1997) Muslim Personal law, Universal New
          Delhi Pp. 200-202.

   26.    Islam and Comparative law, Quarterly Journal April-June 1981
          P. 146.

   27.    Supra note 23.

   28.    AIR 2001 SC 3958.
      29.   AIR 2001 SC 1531 paragraph 36 &37.

      30.   AIR 2000 SC 1650.

      31.   Supra note 28.

      32.   Ibid.

      33.   Supra note 29, in another case Union of India v Prakash P.
            Hiduja AIR 2003 SC 2612 at paragraph 29, Supreme Court said
            that only parliament exercises sovereign power to enact laws
            and no outside power or authority can issue a direction to enact
            a particular piece of legislation. Employees Association V
            Union of India (1989) 4 SCC 187.

      34.   CAD Vol VIII P. 478 to 486.

      35.   (2003) 6 SCC 611.

      36.   AIR 1994 SC 1918, this observation delivered by Justice K.
            Rama swami (concurring with Sawant and B.P.Jeevan Reddy

      37.   Nicomachen Ethics Vol 2.

      38.   Ibid Vol 3.

      39.   CAD Vol VII P. 551.

      40.   Ibid.

41.   The Hindu october 23, 2008.