Difficult Word/ Phrase | Contextual Sense |
Progressive | Developing or happening gradually |
Uniformity | The quality or fact of being the same, or of not changing or being different in any way |
Allowances | An amount of something that you are allowed |
Incursion | An occasion when people suddenly involve themselves in another person’s private situation |
Intrusive | Affecting someone in a way that annoys them and makes them feel uncomfortable |
Legitimacy | The quality of being reasonable and acceptable |
Mandating | To give official permission for something to happen |
Desertion | The act of leaving someone behind in a difficult situation |
Constitution | The set of political principles by which a state or organization is governed, especially in relation to the rights of the people it governs |
Adoption | Accepting or starting to use something new |
Promote | To encourage people to like, buy, use, do, or support something |
Voluntary | Done, made, or given willingly, without being forced or paid to do it |
Reformed | Changed and improved because of no longer doing something harmful |
Regressive | Returning to a previous and less advanced or worse state or way of behaving |
Prohibited | To officially refuse to allow something |
Consequence | A result of a particular action or situation, often one that is bad or not convenient |
A Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is a desirable and progressive (developing or happening gradually) goal for a secular country. However, mere uniformity (the quality or fact of being the same, or of not changing or being different in any way) without making reasonable allowances (an amount of something that you are allowed) for diverse cultural and social practices among different social groups may not be ideal. The UCC adopted by the Uttarakhand Assembly aims to consolidate the laws relating to marriage, divorce and succession among all communities. The State has become the first since pre-Independence Goa to adopt a uniform code for civil matters. What is particularly violative of the Constitution is the bizarre portion in this UCC aiming to formalise live-in relationships through registration. This unwanted incursion (an occasion when people suddenly involve themselves in another person’s private situation) into citizens’ personal life is worsened by the prescription of a three-month prison term for non-registration. It will expose citizens to intrusive (affecting someone in a way that annoys them and makes them feel uncomfortable) inquiries, social hostility and pointless deprivation of liberty. While it contains positive features such as conferring legitimacy (the quality of being reasonable and acceptable) on children born of live-in relations and mandating (to give official permission for something to happen) maintenance in the event of desertion (the act of leaving someone behind in a difficult situation), the very idea that people living together should submit themselves to registration and verification is repugnant to individual rights.
When the Constitution (the set of political principles by which a state or organization is governed, especially in relation to the rights of the people it governs) makers made the adoption (accepting or starting to use something new) of a UCC one of the directive principles, opinion was divided on whether a UCC will undermine minority rights or promote (to encourage people to like, buy, use, do, or support something) equal status for women in all religions. B.R. Ambedkar felt the UCC, if enacted, should be voluntary (done, made, or given willingly, without being forced or paid to do it) in the initial stages. The previous Law Commission had said a UCC is neither desirable nor necessary, and, instead, suggested that each body of personal law be reformed ( changed and improved because of no longer doing something harmful) to eliminate discrimination or regressive (returning to a previous and less advanced or worse state or way of behaving) practices. However, the present Law Commission has revived the idea and has started gathering views from the public. Much of the Uttarakhand Code seems to have been borrowed from existing laws on marriage and succession, but with significant omissions. For instance, the Code is the only avenue for dissolving a marriage and there is no waiting period to remarry after a divorce; nor is there any need for a woman to marry another person before she can re-marry her former husband. These provisions, which eliminate the concepts of iddat, talaq and nikah halala, are all progressive and further individual rights. Interestingly, it preserves the existing provision allowing custom and usage as an exception to the bar on marriage within prohibited (to officially refuse to allow something) degrees of relationship, but adds a rider that such custom cannot be against public policy or morality. An unfortunate fallout of all this is a polarising discourse taking shape in the run-up to the general election. The concept of justice should not be lost in the search for uniformity, which should be no more than an incidental consequence (a result of a particular action or situation, often one that is bad or not convenient) of equality.
Unlock the power of words, one step further! Download the Lists of Word-Meanings of Previous Months here.
Cover all the topics via RRB ALP Study Plan 2024 by following tips for effective…
If you want to improve your Essay Writing skills for Bank exams, you must not…
Here we are providing the Last Minute Tips For UIIC AO 2024 Exam, candidates can…
Read The Hindu Editorial Vocabulary to know difficult words with its meanings. We provide monthly…
Get the Hindu Editorial Vocabulary for 15th November & discover the toughest words and their…
SIDBI has announced the SIDBI Grade A Exam Date 2024 to conduct the SIDBI Grade…