Former Bombay High Court judge R C Chavan resigned from Maharashtra’s UCC panel.
He questioned how the committee planned to gather public feedback.
Chavan said the chairperson had already finalised the proposed public questionnaire.
Retired Bombay High Court judge Justice RC Chavan has resigned from Maharashtra’s Uniform Civil Code (UCC) committee, citing differences over the alleged approach of the panel towards public feedback and involvement of a non-member in one of the committee's meeting.
Chavan submitted his resignation on September 19, hours after the committee’s second online meeting. The state government accepted it on Monday, The Indian Express reported. The seven-member panel, headed by retired Supreme Court judge Justice Ranjana Desai, was formed in July to prepare rules and recommendations for implementing a UCC in Maharashtra.
Who Is Justice RC Chavan?
Born in Nagpur on April 12, 1952, Chavan joined the judicial service on March 1, 1976, as a civil judge and judicial magistrate. He became a senior division civil judge in 1985 and an additional district and sessions judge in 1987.
His assignments took him to courts in Jalgaon, Thane and Nashik. Between 1990 and 1994, he served as joint director of the Judicial Officers Training Institute in Nagpur. He later worked as a district and sessions judge in Nanded, Aurangabad, Daman and Diu, and Pune.
Chavan also held administrative posts at the Bombay High Court, including that of its first Registrar General. He was elevated to the High Court bench on June 22, 2005, and served until 2013. He subsequently became president of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
He has also written about the judiciary. His books include Cries in the Wilderness, More Cries in the Wilderness and the novel Yes, My Lord, It’s You in the Mirror.
Why Did He Resign?
In his email to the committee, Chavan said members had tried to offer views on a questionnaire intended to gather public feedback on the UCC. He said the chairperson had already circulated a finalised version and indicated that it would be uploaded once the committee’s website was ready, as reported by Indian Express.
Chavan questioned whether a questionnaire seeking brief yes-or-no responses could capture detailed views on issues he wanted the panel to consider, including late marriages, infertility, unstable marriages and delays in resolving disputes. These were his concerns about the consultation process, rather than findings by the committee.
He also questioned the presence and role of a non-member who, according to his account, suggested changes to the website prepared by state officials. Chavan said he did not know where that person fitted into the committee’s work.
