GD GOENKA MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2023

STUDY GUIDE

LOK SABHA: The Lower House of Parliament of India

AGENDA

DISCUSSION ON STATE’S POWER TO LEGISLATE ON

SAME-SEX MARRIAGES AND BY RELIGIOUS CONVERSION
Letter from the Executive Board

Greetings Delegates!

It is an honor to be serving as the Speaker of the Lok Sabha at GD Goenka Model United Nations
2023 from 7-8 October 2023. I hope to be part of an academic simulation and engage in a
constructive discussion on the issue of discussion on state’s power to legislate on same and sex
marriages and marriages by religious conversion.

The Parliament of India is widely known for its monumental discussions and major disruptions.
As we roll out the Red carpet of the Parliament in order to stage yet another session, alike to the
one in the Lutyens. It becomes imperative for you delegates to assume the roles of the members
of Parliament and set a roadmap for your own country. The Parliament of India is a community of
thinkers and is in true sense the mirror of the nation. So, let’s abate the chair flinging intensity and
better yet let the speaker have its mace for full time. We are here for productive debate and we
shall have it. Simulating this committee at this Conference gives you an opportunity to work together
and achieve consensus on some of the most critical issues being faced by the National and
International Community. This study guide shall only be an instrument of assistance to the delegates
and therefore the list of topics given is not an exhaustive one. The delegates are at full liberty to bring
up any other relevant point for discussion. Presence of mind and attentiveness is essentially important
for all delegates. Rather I want to see how he/she can respect disparities and differences of opinion,
work around these, while extending their party policies so that it includes more of comprehensive
solutions without compromising their own stand and initiating consensus building.

Let’s transform the cycle of Dharma!

Ambuj Singh Bhardwaj Lakshit Tandon Jayvardhan Rathore

(Speaker, Lok Sabha) (Deputy Speaker, Lok Sabha) (Secretary-General, Lok Sabha)
 INTRODUCTION TO THE COMMITTEE

The Parliament of India is the supreme legislative body of the Republic of India. The
Parliament is composed of the President of India and the houses. It is bicameral with two
houses: the Rajya Sabha (Council of States) and the Lok Sabha (House of the People). The
President in his role as head of legislature has full powers to summon and prorogue either
house of Parliament or to dissolve Lok Sabha. The president can exercise these powers
only upon the advice of the Prime Minister and his Union Council of Ministers. Those
elected or nominated (by the President) to either house of Parliament are referred to as
members of parliament (MP). The MPs of Lok Sabha are directly elected by the Indian
public voting in Single-member districts and the MPs of Rajya Sabha are elected by the
members of all of the State Legislative Assembly by proportional representation. The
Parliament has a sanctioned strength of 550 in Lok Sabha and 250 in Rajya Sabha including
the 12 nominees from the expertise of different fields of science, culture, art and history.
The Parliament meets at the new Sansad Bhavan in New Delhi. The Parliament of India is
bicameral in nature. Concurrence of both houses are required to pass any bill. However,
the authors of the Constitution of India visualized situations of deadlock between the upper
house i.e. Rajya Sabha and the lower house i.e. Lok Sabha. Therefore, the Constitution of
India provides for Joint sittings of both the Houses to break this deadlock. The joint sitting
of the Parliament is called by the President under the Article 108 of the Constitution of
India, and is presided over by the Speaker or, in his absence, by the Deputy Speaker of the
Lok Sabha or in his absence, the Deputy-Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. If any of the above
officers are not present, then any other member of the Parliament can preside by consensus
of both the House. Joint session for discussion on a bill under article 108 has been used to
push through legislation only on two occasions - in May 1961 to pass the dowry prohibition
bill and in May 1978 for the banking service commission (repeal) bill.
 RIGHT to PRIVACY

Since the 1960s, the Supreme Court has dealt with the issue of privacy, both as a
fundamental right under the Constitution and as a common law right. The common thread
through all these judgments of the Indian judiciary has been to recognize a right to privacy,
either as a fundamental right or a common law right, but to refrain from defining it in iron-
clad terms. Instead the Courts have preferred it evolve on a case by case basis. As Justice
Mathew put it, “The right to privacy will, therefore, necessarily, have to go through a
process of case by case development.” (Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1975 SC
1378)

Privacy in the context of sexual identities

In the case of Naz Foundation v. Union of India (WP No. 7555 of 2011) the Delhi High
Court ‘read down’ Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to decriminalize a class of
sexual relations between consenting adults. One of the critical arguments accepted by the
Court in this case was that the right to privacy of a citizen’s sexual relations, protected as
it was under Article 21, could be intruded into by the State only if the State was able to
establish a compelling interest for such interference. Since the State was unable to prove a
compelling state interest to interfere in the sexual relations of its citizens, the provision was
read down to decriminalize all consensual sexual relations. Privacy has emerged, and
evolved, as a fundamental right through these various decisions of the courts. The Supreme
Court, in four separate but concurring judgments, in Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union of India,
set aside its own verdict in the Suresh Kaushal case, decriminalizing homosexuality for
consenting adults. CJI Dipak Misra said, “Societal morality cannot trump constitutional
morality. It is time to bid adieu to prejudicial perceptions deeply ingrained in social mindset
and to empower LGBTQ community against discrimination”
A Fundamental Right

A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on August 24 2017 in the case of
Justice (Red.) K.S Puttaswamy vs. Union of India, ruled that right to privacy is “intrinsic
to life and liberty” and is inherently protected under the various fundamental freedoms
enshrined under Part III of the Indian Constitution. Chief Justice of India Jagdish Singh
Khehar, while reading out the judgment said the court had overruled its own eight-judge
Bench and six-judge Bench judgments of M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh cases delivered
in 1954 and 1961, respectively, that privacy is not protected under the Constitution. The
Union government had argued that privacy is a common law right.

The nine-judge Bench comprised, besides Chief Justice Khehar, Justices J. Chelameswar,
S.A. Bobde, R.K. Agrawal, Rohinton F. Nariman, Abhay Manohar Sapre, D.Y.
Chandrachud and Sanjay Kishan Kaul. The Bench was formed as the 1954 and 1961
judgments had dominated the judicial dialogue on privacy since Independence. Both
judgments had concluded that privacy was not a fundamental or ‘guaranteed’ right. To
overcome these two precedents, a numerically superior Bench of nine judges was required.
A five-judge Bench led by Chief Justice Khehar had referred the question whether privacy
is a fundamental right or not to the nine-judge Bench.

Same-sex marriages

The practice of marriage between two men or between two women. Although same-sex
marriage has been regulated through law, religion, and custom in most countries of the
world, the legal and social responses have ranged from celebration on the one hand to
criminalization on the other.
 History of Recognition of LGBTQIA+ In India

▪ In 1861, British-Raj considered sexual activities “against the order of

nature” including all homosexual activities to be criminalized under Section 377 of
the Indian Penal Code.

▪ In 1977, Shakuntala Devi published the first study of homosexuality in India,

called “The World of Homosexuals”.

▪ In 1994, they were legally granted voting rights as a third sex.

▪ In 2014, the Supreme Court of India ruled that transgender people should be treated
as the third category of gender.

▪ In 2017, the Supreme Court gave the country’s LGBTQIA+ community the
freedom to safely express their sexual orientation.

o An individual’s sexual orientation was protected by the Right to Privacy.

▪ On 6 September 2018, the Supreme Court struck down the part of Section 377
which criminalized consensual homosexual activities.

▪ In 2019, Parliament enacted Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act with an

objective to provide for protection of rights of transgender people, their welfare, and
other related matters.
 SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN INDIA

In India, same-sex marriages are not currently legal, although there are ongoing efforts to
recognize and legalize them. This topic is important because it relates to the fundamental
human rights of LGBTQ+ individuals and the recognition and protection of their
relationships

Recently, the Supreme Court of India began hearing a series of petitions seeking
solemnization of same-sex marriage under the Special Marriage Act. The Special Marriage
Act of 1954 provides a civil form of marriage for couples who cannot marry under their
personal law.

On November 14th, 2022, two same-sex couples filed writ petitions in the Supreme Court
seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriages in India. The petitions were centered-on
the constitutionality of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (the Act). The first petition was
filed by Supriyo Chakraborty and Abhay Dang. The second petition was by Parth Phiroze
Merhotra and Uday Raj Anand.

The petitioners argue that Section 4(c) of the Act recognizes marriage only between a
‘male’ and a ‘female’. This discriminates against same-sex couples by denying them
matrimonial benefits such as adoption, surrogacy, employment and retirement benefits.
The petitioners asked the Court to declare Section 4(c) of the Act unconstitutional. The
plea has been tagged with a number of other petitions challenging other personal laws on
similar grounds. The challenged enactments include the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the
Foreign Marriage Act, 1969.

The petitioners argue that the non-recognition of same-sex marriage violates the rights
to equality, freedom of expression and dignity. They relied on NALSA vs. Union of
India (2014) and Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union of India (2018) which recognized non-
binary gender identities and guaranteed equal rights to homosexual persons.

The Supreme Court Bench comprising Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Hima
Kohli passed an Order directing the Union to respond to the petitions. Similar petitions are
pending before the Delhi and Kerala High Courts. Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy
and Advocate Karuna Nundy urged a 2-Judge Bench comprising CJI Chandrachud and
Justice P.S. Narasimha to transfer two similar petitions pending before the Delhi & Kerala
High Courts to the Supreme Court. A 3-Judge Bench comprising Chief Justice D.Y.
Chandrachud with Justices P.S. Narasimha and J.B. Pardiwala transferred 9 pending
petitions dealing with similar issues from the Delhi and Kerala High Courts to itself. Then
the 3-Judge Bench led by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud referred the case to a 5-Judge Constitution
Bench. In the proceedings the center advised the Supreme Court to defer the case to
Parliament on the matter, stating that the law cannot be revised to permit same-sex marriage
again. In this context, there is a need to look into the matter of Same-sex marriage and its
related issues.

5-Judge bench led by CJ DY Chandrachud has completed the hearing and judgment
has been reserved.

Factors to consider for parliamentarians to argue

▪ Religious Definitions of Marriage: Marriage has traditionally been between a man

and a woman in many religions. The Special Marriage Act, 1954 was created to
overcome the limitations of religious personal laws, not to create a new institution of
marriage.
▪ ‘Legitimate’ Interest of State: The state has a legitimate interest in regulating
marriage and personal relationships, as seen in laws regarding age of consent,
prohibited degrees of marriage, and divorce. The right to marry is not absolute and
subject to state laws. Just like a parent cannot claim absolute control over their child's
education, individuals cannot claim absolute control over their personal relationships.

o The state can claim legitimate interest to regulate, when to marry, how many
times to marry, whom to marry, how to separate, and law on bestiality or incest.

o However privacy exists, but it cannot be extended to marriage, which has a

necessary public element. Consenting sexual relationships between adults are
private, but marriage has a public aspect that cannot be ignored.

▪ Religious Definitions of Marriage: Marriage has traditionally been between a man

and a woman in many religions. The Special Marriage Act, 1954 was created to
overcome the limitations of religious personal laws, not to create a new institution of
marriage.

▪ ‘Legitimate’ Interest of State: The state has a legitimate interest in regulating

marriage and personal relationships, as seen in laws regarding age of consent,
prohibited degrees of marriage, and divorce. The right to marry is not absolute and
subject to state laws. Just like a parent cannot claim absolute control over their child's
education, individuals cannot claim absolute control over their personal relationships.

o The state can claim legitimate interest to regulate, when to marry, how many
times to marry, whom to marry, how to separate, and law on bestiality or incest.

▪ The Right to Privacy: In 2017, the Supreme Court recognized the right to privacy
as a fundamental right and stated that sexual orientation is a crucial part of one's
identity that must be protected without discrimination.
 o However, privacy exists but it cannot be extended to marriage, which has a
necessary public element. Consenting sexual relationships between adults are
private, but marriage has a public aspect that cannot be ignored.

▪ Legislation by Parliament: Only Parliament has the authority to decide on same-

sex marriage as it is a matter of democratic right and court should not legislate on the
issue. There could be potential unintended consequences in law and the complexity
of dealing with the various permutations and combinations of genders falling under
the LGBTQIA+ community (which has 72 categories).

▪ Interpreting the Law: The Special Marriage Act (SMA) cannot be interpreted to
include same-sex marriage because the Act's entire architecture would need to be
examined, not just a few words. For example, the Act provides specific rights to a
wife, and it's unclear who would have these rights in a same-sex marriage.
Additionally, allowing one party in a same-sex marriage to have a specific right could
create a problem for heterosexual marriages.

o Law provides specific rights to a wife like “the law says that the wife acquires
the domicile of the husband upon marriage. So, who will be the wife in a same-
sex marriage?”

o Issue of divorce, under the SMA, a wife may seek divorce on the ground that
her husband has been guilty of rape, sodomy, or bestiality.

▪ Issues with Adoption of Children: When queer couples adopt children, it can lead
to societal stigma, discrimination, and negative impacts on the child's emotional and
psychological well-being, especially in Indian society where acceptance of the
LGBTQIA+ community is not universal.

▪ Gendered terms: Argument that gendered terms like 'mother' and 'father', 'husband'
and 'wife' would be problematic in same-sex marriages.
▪ Surrogacy and adoption: Opposing same-sex marriage by saying it will end the
human race is unreasonable because adoption is a solution for queer couples who
want to raise children.

▪ Marriage being a Fundamental Right: The demand for marriage equality comes
from less economically privileged people who need legal protection. Claiming that
it's a matter for urban elites is deceptive. E.g. The story of Leela and Urmila, two
policewomen who were suspended and locked up for getting married in 1987, shows
the discrimination faced by LGBTQIA+ people in society.

▪ Extend Special Marriage Act to Queer Indians: The Special Marriage Act should
be extended to include queer Indians by using gender-neutral language like "spouse"
instead of "husband" or "wife". This would grant them the right to marry without
asking for special rights.

o The Special Marriage Act allowed for a Bengali Hindu and an Anglo-Indian
Roman Catholic to marry in 2006, and they hope this legislation will be
extended to queer Indians.

▪ Cohabitation as a Fundamental Right: The Chief Justice of India (CJI)

acknowledged that cohabitation is a fundamental right, and it is the government's
obligation to legally recognize the social impact of such relationships.

o The justices suggested that recognition is needed for such relationships to

receive certain benefits, but not necessarily as marriage. The CJI emphasized
the importance of providing a sense of security and social welfare for people in
such relationships.

o The court suggested labels like "contract" or "partnership" instead of

"marriage". The government said there is no fundamental right to seek
recognition of same-sex relationships as marriage.
 o The Supreme Court of India discussed the recognition of cohabitation as a
fundamental right for same-sex couples, which would entitle them to benefits
without being equated to marriage.

▪ Assimilation of same-sex couples: The CJI has emphasized the need to assimilate
same-sex couples into society rather than ostracizing them. The decriminalization
of Section 377 of the IPC has recognized the existence of same-sex relationships.

o Government should address the practical issues faced by same-sex couples,

such as joint bank accounts and entitlement to pension and gratuity.

▪ Indian Culture and Value System: In culturally rich India, where social norms and
obligations wield significant influence, the acceptance of same-sex relationships still
poses a challenge, even after legal recognition.

o It goes against the traditional values and beliefs of the Indian society. However,
the recognition of same-sex marriage adds to the diversity of relationships
that exist in society.

▪ Human Dignity: In Navtej Singh Johar, the Supreme Court granted same-sex
couples the freedom to lead a dignified private life.

▪ Biological gender is not ‘absolute: The Supreme Court of India says that biological
gender is not absolute, and that gender is more complex than just one's genitals. There
is no absolute concept of a man or a woman.

▪ ‘Bouquet of rights’ being denied: The LGBTQIA+ community is being denied

important legal benefits like tax benefits, medical rights, inheritance, and adoption by
not being allowed to marry. Marriage is not just about dignity, but also a collection
of social contracts.
 MARRIAGES BY RELIGIOUS CONVERSION

Religious Conversion

A practice where an Individual renounces his original religion and adapts to different
religions and ideals. Conversion of religion is a basic right in India. As per Article 15 of
the constitution an individual has the freedom to choose a particular religion. Especially
in India where multiple religions are prevalent religious conversions are quite common.
Conversion of religion due to self-belief, is completely legal in India.

However, conversion with the ultimate motive of marriage is a non-bailable offence.

(Mayra alias Vaishnvi Vilas Shirshikar and another vs. State of UP)

Existing Practices in Places (Historically)

• Before independence, princely States had Acts such as the Raigarh State Conversion
Act of 1936, the Patna Freedom of Religion Act of 1942, the Sarguja State Apostasy
Act of 1945 and the Udaipur State Anti-Conversion Act of 1946, mainly against
conversion to Christianity.
• While Acts of the erstwhile Princely States were allowed to lapse with the adoption
of the Constitution, States with sizeable tribal populations like Odisha and Madhya
Pradesh remained suspicious of the activities of Christian missionaries.
• In post-independence India, Odisha became the first State to enact a law
restricting religious conversions, which later became a model framework for other
States.
• Odisha’s 1967 Act provides that no person shall directly or indirectly convert any
person from one religious faith to another by force, inducement or any fraudulent
means.
 • Madhya Pradesh brought in the Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantraya Adhiniyam
(1968). This Act added a provision distinct from the Odisha law, requiring whoever
converted any person, either as a religious priest or by taking part in a conversion-
related ceremony to intimate the District Magistrate that such a conversion had
taken place. Failure to do so would attract punishment and fines.
• Subsequent Acts in other States over the past two decades see identical provisions.
These laws also provide for greater punishment for forceful conversion of persons
from Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribe communities, minors and women.
• Such provisions were passed allegedly in the best interest of these groups in a sense
painting them as “naive” and prone to be misled.
• More than ten Indian States have enacted laws prohibiting certain means of religious
conversions. Under these laws, penalties for violations range from one to ten years
of imprisonment and fines up to ₹50,000.
• Since 2017, multiple BJP-ruled States enacted or revised their anti-conversion laws,
restricting religious conversions on the additional ground of marriage, supposedly
to curb what has been described as “love jihad”.
• For instance, the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion
Act, 2021, says that a marriage would be declared “null and void” if the conversion
is solely for that purpose, and those wishing to change their religion after marriage
need to apply to the District Magistrate.
• People are also not permitted to abet, convince or conspire such conversion. The
Act provides for imprisonment up to 10 years and a maximum fine of ₹50,000 for
violators.

LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS ON RELIGIOUS CONVERSION

• Hadiya vs. Ashokan K.M: The Supreme Court held that an adult has the right
to marry and convert to another religion of their choice, and the state cannot
interfere with this right.
 • Lata Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh: The Supreme Court ruled that an
individual has the right to marry someone of their choice regardless of their
religion, caste, or social status, and any interference with this right is a
violation of the right to freedom of choice.
• Sarla Mudgal vs. Union of India: The Supreme Court held that a person can
convert to another religion for the purpose of marriage, but the conversion
should not be used as an excuse to evade legal obligations or responsibilities.
• Rev Stanislaus vs. Madhya Pradesh, 1977: The Supreme Court concluded
that the right to propagate does not include the right to convert.

The Supreme Court’s recent remarks on religious conversions cast a spotlight on the long-
standing debate about what the fundamental right to “propagate” one’s religious faith
entails.

• SC Bench led by Justice M.R. Shah said acts of charity or good work to help a
community or the poor should not cloak an intention to religiously convert them as
payback.
• SC had remarked that religious conversions by means of force, allurement or fraud
may “ultimately affect the security of the nation and freedom of religion and
conscience of citizens”.

Uniform Civil Code (UCC)

The UCC is mentioned in Article 44 of the Constitution, under the Directive Principles of
State Policy of India, which says that the State “shall endeavour to secure for the citizens
a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.” This was done following
considerable debate on whether UCC should be a fundamental right or a directive principle.
While the directive principles are not enforceable by courts, they are fundamental in the
governance of the country.
The Constituent Assembly debates indicate that there was no consensus over what a UCC
would look like. Ambedkar himself felt that while a UCC was desirable, it should be
“purely voluntary” in the initial stages.

The idea of a UCC has been backed by the BJP since the party’s inception, and even prior
to that by its predecessor, the Jan Sangh. It first featured in BJP’s election manifesto in
1998, when it said the Law Commission would be asked to frame a UCC based on
“progressive practices from all traditions” to ensure equal rights for women in the context
of divorce laws, property rights, adoption and guardianship rights, and to put an end to
polygamy.

The Supreme Court itself has called for the implementation of UCC in various judgments,
notably in the landmark 1985 Shah Bano verdict (Mohd Ahmed Khan vs. Shah Bano
Begum and Ors) which favored payment of alimony to divorced Muslim women in
contradiction of existing Muslim personal law. In 2015 too, the apex court suggested that
the Union government work on a UCC, saying there was a lot of confusion because of
varied personal laws (while hearing a petition challenging a longer period of separation for
Christian couples before filing for divorce by mutual consent, compared to other
religions).

In June 2016, the Union government tasked the Law Commission of India with examining
matters related to UCC. In its 2018 consultation paper, the Commission said that a UCC
was “neither necessary nor desirable at this stage.” Instead, it discussed various
discriminatory laws at length and recommended changes within the personal laws of each
community to ensure gender equality.

What could a UCC possibly look like?

A UCC is likely to replace existing personal laws related to a wide range of matters,
including marriage and divorce, custody, guardianship, adoption and maintenance of
children, and succession and inheritance of property. It is also likely to impact income tax
laws, customary laws of tribal groups, and marriage equality and other rights of
LGBTQIA+ persons. Here are some of the complexities in personal laws a UCC is
expected to address.

The institution of marriage

Polygamy: One of the first topics that come up in debates on UCC is about polygamy
being permitted in Islam, with the perception that Muslim women are often treated poorly
by husbands who have multiple wives. However, government data suggests that polygamy
is not that much more prevalent among Muslims compared to other communities.

The Law Commission’s 2018 report too said that polygamy is a rare practice among Indian
Muslims, while noting that it is often misused by persons of other religions who convert to
Islam only to legally have multiple wives. Noting that the matter is sub-judice before the
Supreme Court, the Commission, however, took a stand against bigamy, saying the fact
that only men are allowed to have multiple wives is “unfair.”

Age of consent for marriage: A UCC would also have to consider the demands for
compulsory registration of marriages, and the ambiguities around the age of consent for
marriage. For instance, Hindu law prescribes 18 and 21 years as the legal minimum age for
women and men. Muslim law on the other hand recognizes the marriage of any minor girl
who has attained puberty as valid. The 21st Law Commission had also argued against the
difference in the minimum age for men and women, saying it contributes to the stereotype
that wives must be younger than their husbands.

Divorce: Currently, the grounds for divorce, division of property upon divorce, and
alimony are all decided differently as per the personal laws of various communities. The
21st Law Commission recommended changes across different communities’ laws —
Hindus, Muslims, Parsis, Christians, Sikhs and others — encouraging a simplified process
for divorce with the same grounds for divorce made available to men and women from the
same community, and accounting for women’s contribution in household labour and care
while dividing property after divorce.

While the practice of instant triple talaq in Islam has already been outlawed, the Law
Commission noted that men can seek divorce without an explanation while women need
to qualify their decision, and recommended applying the grounds for divorce available in
the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, 1939 to men and women, to ensure “equality
within the community rather than equality between different communities.”

Custody of children, adoption

The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 considers the father as the default ‘natural
guardian’ of a minor, giving him precedence over the mother. But this is only in the case
of a legitimate child, whereas the mother becomes the natural guardian if the child is
‘illegitimate’. In the case of a married minor girl, the husband becomes her guardian. The
21st Law Commission had noted while discussing this Act that although codified Hindu
Law was brought in to tackle discrimination against women, the notion of men being
superior and in control still persists.

The custody of a minor varies among different schools of Muslim personal law, and the
definition of a minor itself is different from other communities, as a child is considered a
major upon attaining puberty.

When it comes to adoption, Hindu law treats an adopted child as equivalent to a biological
child. Islamic doesn’t recognize adoption but allows a ‘kafala’ system wherein the child is
placed under the guardianship of a foster parent who is legally entitled to care for the child.

Inheritance

Succession and inheritance of property are also complex issues with varied laws among
different communities. The 21st Law Commission, while calling for measures to ensure
gender equality in inheritance laws, also recommended the abolition of the Hindu
Undivided Family (HUF), a Hindu joint family that enjoys legal status as a trading entity.
“In present times, HUF is neither congruent with corporate governance, nor is it conducive
for the tax regime,” the 2018 paper had said.

Are there any precedents for a UCC in India?

Goa is the only Indian state which currently has a civil code, based on the Portuguese Civil
Code of 1867. The Supreme Court in 2019 hailed Goa as a “shining example” with a
working UCC “applicable to all, regardless of religion except while protecting certain
limited rights.” BJP leaders including LK Advani and Goa Chief Minister Pramod Sawant
too have held it up as a model for other states and proof that a UCC is feasible in India.

However, the Goan law has some outdated provisions and isn’t absolutely uniform. For
instance, as All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) Chief Asaduddin Owaisi
pointed out last year, while the law doesn’t permit bigamy even for Muslims, it allows an
exception for a Hindu man if his wife is unable to conceive a child. CM Sawant had
defended the law stating that the provision existed only on paper and had not been applied
in years. The law also differentiates between Catholics and others in the way it recognizes
marriage.

While a few BJP-ruled states including Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat have constituted
committees to implement a UCC, Uttarakhand is the only state where a draft Civil Code
has been prepared by an expert committee. Several reports suggest that the Union
government is likely to use this as a template for drafting its own UCC Bill.
 A Note for the Delegates

⚫ RULES of PROCEDURE for the Committee are explained in the below link.
However, the Executive Board would explain all the rules, once again before the
start of the committee.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=11X3A5OIuM5hHPP5LD5BKRSsbtkVms7oe

⚫ The representatives must understand that a study guide is simply to be treated as

a tool for their research and they must not consolidate their facts, basing upon
this guide. In Ideal situation, this guide should act like your first step towards
research.
⚫ The Study guide comprises of Information which has been drawn from various
scholarly articles and journals and hence duplicity of the information should not
be questioned.
⚫ The Executive Board can ensure complete authenticity of the Information as
provided and hence the representatives must remember that every discussion
takes place from a perspective and hence every judgment and statement can be
argued upon.
⚫ Policy representation can be very much challenged by any representative and the
Executive Board looks forward to it, every time.