[Uniform Civil Code] Central government asks Supreme Court to dismiss plea by BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay with costs

The Central government has opposed a petition filed by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) spokesperson and lawyer Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay before the Supreme Court seeking uniform grounds and procedure for divorce and uniform procedure for adoption and guardianship for all communities across the country [Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v Union of India]..In an affidavit filed before the top court, the government said that Upadhyay has not approached the Court with clean hands since a plea filed by him seeking a Uniform Civil Code is pending before the Delhi High Court and the issues in the plea before the Supreme Court could have connection with the plea before the High Court.The government, therefore, prayed that the petition by Upadhyay be dismissed with costs..Law Commission Report.In an affidavit filed on Thursday, the Central government informed the court that in view of the sensitivity of the subject matter and requirement of an in-depth study, it had requested the Law Commission of India to undertake examine various issues relating to the UCC and make a recommendation. "In view of the importance of the subject matter and sensitivity involved which requires in-depth study of the provisions of various personal laws governing different communities, the Central government requested the Law Commission of India to undertake examination of various issues relating to uniform civil code and to make recommendations," the affidavit said..In light of this request, the law commission undertook detailed research and uploaded a consultation paper in August 2018 titled 'Reform of Family Law' on its website for wider deliberation..Uniform Civil Code neither necessary nor desirable at this stage, Law Commission of India.However, the 21st Law Commission's term ended shortly after this and the 22nd Law Commission would now examine the issue. It was submitted that once the commission's report was received, the government would examine it in consultation with various stakeholders. .Maintainability .The Central government also stated that the petition was not maintainable since it had been laid down by a catena of judgments that under the Constitutional scheme, the parliament exercises the sovereign power to enact laws and no outside power or authority could issue a direction to enact a particular piece of legislation."It is a matter of policy for the elected representatives to decide and no direction in this regard can be issued by the Court," the affidavit stated..Further, it was submitted that a person acting in good faith would alone have jurisdiction to approach a court in public interest for the poor and needy who may be suffering from a violation of their statutory rights. "In the present petition, there is nothing to suggest that the affected person has taken up any cause and approached the court. Hence, the present petition is not maintainable.".Common adoption law .The argument that Muslims, Christians and Parsis did not have a common law government adoption was denied by the government, stating that they could approach the court under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act for adoption. .Unclean hands.The affidavit further stated that Upadhyay had approached the Delhi High Court impleading the Central government in a plea seeking a Uniform Civil Code."This could have legal nexus with the issue involved in this PIL. Therefore, the petitioner has not approached this court with clean hands.".With these submissions, the government prayed that the plea be dismissed with costs. .Upadhyay's plea seeks uniform grounds of divorce and a uniform procedure for divorce and a uniform procedure of adoption & guardianship..Opposing his plea before the Delhi High Court, the Central government said that a UCC can be introduced only after an in-depth study of various personal laws governing different communities and cannot be done in three months based on court orders. .Pertinently, in November last year, the Allahabad High Court had called upon the Central government to implement the mandate of Article 44 saying that a UCC was a necessity and could not be considered ‘voluntary’'..Contrarily, the Law Commission, in its 2018 consultation paper, had said that a UCC is neither necessary nor desirable at this stage.It had instead suggested amendments to existing family laws to tackle discrimination and inequality in personal laws, rather than do away with differences between them altogether.It had also suggested codification of certain aspects of personal laws to limit the ambiguity in interpretation and application of these personal laws.