Analysis Of Article 44, A Directive Principle Of State Policy

Article 44 , which is a Directive Principle of State Policy, provides that:
“The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.”
This Article mandates the state to strive to bring in place a Uniform Civil Code. Though it is not binding but it imposes an obligation on the State. While this has been an agenda in the manifesto of various political parties but may be because of the ‘vote-bank’ politics or communalization they have not been able to succeed in their endeavour. Besides, the courts have also seemed to be rather reluctant in giving a clear stance over the matter and till date no specific guidelines have been laid down. The Supreme Court could have interpreted adoption as a fundamental
However since there is no law in place for such people, they are required to follow a cumbersome process by first taking the guardianship of the child from the courts under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and then giving due assurance to the Court that they would legally adopt the child as per the laws of their country within two years of their arrival there. All this can be avoided by bringing a law in place which will deal with all such cases and consequentially the misuse of adoptees will also come down. Newspapers have reported a number of cases where the child has gone to an alien land only to be mistreated. Such children have been used as domestic servants, beggars and even for prostitution. The Andhra Pradesh scandals illustrate the wide gap between the laws of inter-country adoption and the actual practices. In relation to inter-country adoption certain guidelines have been laid down by the Supreme Court as to how the adoption shall take place in Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India . A regulatory body, i.e., Central Adoption Resource Agency (for short ‘CARA’) was recommended for creation and accordingly set up by the Government of India in the year 1989, Since then, the said body has been playing a pivotal role, laying down norms both substantive and procedural, in the matter of inter as well as in country
Is it for the AIMPLB to take a call on how a secular law should be and to try and dominate the Apex Court of the country? If so, I digress. The Board has been persistently trying to overpower the Supreme Court’s judgment. According to the Board, Islamic Law professes what is known as the “Kafala” system under which the child is placed under a ‘Kafil’ who provides for the well-being of the child including financial support and thus is legally allowed to take care of the child though the child remains the true descendant of his biological parents and not that of the “adoptive” parents. The Board contended that the “Kafala” system which is recognized by the United Nation’s Convention of the Rights of the Child under Article 20(3) is one of the alternate system of child care contemplated by the JJ Act, 2000 and therefore a direction should be issued to all the Child Welfare Committees to keep in mind and follow the principles of Islamic Law before declaring a Muslim child available for adoption under Section 41(5) of the JJ Act, 2000. This is a blatant display of hegemony over the Apex