인도의 종교적 속인법 체계와 여성 정의에 관한 법률 대안: 차이의 문화/ 차별의 문화 = Legal Alternatives on Religious Personal Law System and Gender Justice in India: Cultural Differentiation and Distinction

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

India is a pluralistic country contained with unity and diversity. The Constitution of India reflects both constitutional values such as unity and diversity or universality and specificity. The Indian religious personal system is a religious/cultural normative system or a customary/cultural normative system that reflects the constitutional values ​​of cultural diversity and specificity. The personal law system based on religion is prevailing in Indian society that govern the real life of the Indian people, especially women’s status and rights. The certain customs and practice governed by the religious personal laws downgrade the status and rights of Indian women and even expose women to serious sexual crimes. Hence, The fundamental causes and solutions to protect women’s status and rights should be considered in the view of legal and institutional perspectives. This paper proposes that fundamental cause of women’s problems in Indian society is derived from the religion based personal law system. Therefore, it analyzes possibility of its changes in the personal law system and suggest the feasible legal alternatives for solving women’s issue.
In this paper, it suggests two legal solutions for women’s issue in Indian personal law system. The first measure is to unify the Indian family law system which is pluralistic system such as Uniform Civil Code or to simplify by focusing to single religious law. The second one is to change other existing legal and institutional system related to religious personal law while acknowledging the coexistence of religious personal law.
Accordingly, this paper firstly examines the legal feasibility of both proposed measures by analyzing the reason of coexistence of personal laws in Indian society. For this, it examines the legal legitimacy of the Indian personal law system by analyzing the legal conflicts between constitutional law system and religious personal law system or between respective religious personal laws. Furthermore, this paper also suggests realistic and feasible alternatives that women's problems could be solved while acknowledging the legitimacy of personal law system and analyzes its limits of alternatives.

국문 초록 (Abstract)

인도는 통일성과 다양성을 내재하고 있는 다원(多元) 국가이다. 인도 헌법은 통일성과 다양성, 보편성과 특수성의 양자의 헌법 가치를 모두 반영하고 있다. 인도 종교적 속인법 체계는 문화적 다양성과 특수성에 대한 헌법 가치가 반영된 종교적/문화적 규범 체계 혹은 관습적/문화적 규범 체계이다. 종교적 속인법 체계는 인도 사회에서 인도 국민, 특히 여성의 현실적인 생활을 지배하는 법률 체계이다. 종교적 속인법 체계가 규율하는 악습과 관행은 인도 여성의 지위와 권리를 무시하고 심지어 여성을 심각한 성범죄에 노출시키고 있다. 따라서 여성의 지위와 권리를 보장하고 여성 문제를 해결하기 위한 근본적인 원인과 해결방안이 법제도적 관점에서 제시되어야 한다. 이 글에서는 인도 사회의 여성 문제의 근본적인 원인이 종교적 속인법 체계에서 비롯된다고 간주하고 여성 문제 해결을 위한 종교적 속인법 체계의 변화 가능성과 실현 가능성이 있는 법률 대안을 제시한다.
이 글에서 인도 종교적 속인법 체계로 인한 여성 문제 해결 대안을 두 가지로 제안한다. 첫 번째의 대안은 다수의 종교적 속인법 체계를 단일체계로 만들거나 하나의 종교적 속인법으로 일원화하는 방법이다. 두 번째 대안은 종교적 속인법의 공존을 인정하면서 기존의 제정 법률과 제도를 변경하는 방법이다.
따라서 이 논문에서는 먼저 인도 사회에서 속인법 체계가 여전히 유지·병존되는 원인을 검토함으로써 제안한 대응방법의 실현 가능성을 분석한다. 이를 위해 법률다원주의 시각에 비추어 헌법 체계와 종교적 속인법 체계 또는 종교적 속인법 간의 법률 충돌과 병존 가능성을 검토함으로써 종교적 속인법 체계의 법률 당위성을 확인한다. 또한, 종교적인 속인법 체계를 당위성을 인정하면서 여성 문제를 해결할 수 있는 실현 가능한 대안을 제시하고 그 대안의 한계를 모색한다.

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 이지훈, "인도의 문화다양성에 관한 헌법적 수용과 편입" 국제지역연구센터 22 (22): 273-304, 2018
• 2 이지훈, "인도 혼인의무등록에 관한 중앙법령의 필요성 및 법률대안" 인도연구소 24 (24): 27-56, 2018
• 3 이지훈, "인도 헌법 제21조의 법률해석 변화와 적용확대" 한국인도학회 21 (21): 1-41, 2016
• 4 이지훈, "인도 단일민법에 관한 헌법적 고찰" 국제지역연구센터 21 (21): 67-94, 2017
• 5 이상진, "법다원주의의 이해: 과거에서 현재, 지방에서 세계까지" 법학연구소 26 (26): 405-426, 2010
• 6 Griffiths, John, "What is Legal Pluralism?" 18 (18): 1-55, 1986
• 7 Gore, M. S., "Unity in Diversity: The Indian Experience in Nation-Building" Pawat Publication 2002
• 8 Peters, A., "The Merits of Global Constitutionalism" 16 (16): 397-411, 2009
• 9 Pospisil, Leopold J., "The Anthropology of Law: A Comparative Theory of Law" Harper & Row 1971
• 10 "Tamil Nadu Registration of Marriages Act, 2009"
• 11 "Sushma W/o Hemantrao Bodas vs. Malti W/o Madhukar Machile, 2009. 2009 (111) Bom LR 3974"
• 12 Nair, Harish V, "Supreme Court: Protect nikah halala partitioners" India Today
• 13 PTI, "Supreme Court to examine constitutional validity of polygamy" Business Line
• 14 Roy, Debayan, "Supreme Court To Begin Nikah Halala and Polygamy Hearing From July 20"
• 15 "Special Marriage Act, 1954"
• 16 "Shayara Bano and others vs. Union of India and others, 2016. Writ Petition (C) No. 118 of 2016"
• 17 Mackinnon, Catharine A, "Sex equality under the Constitution of India: Problems, prospects, and “personal laws”" 4 (4): 181-202, 2006
• 18 "Seema vs. Ashwani Kumar, 2006. 2006 (2) SCC 578"
• 19 Fatima, Sumbul, "Secularism in India: A Myth or Reality" 22 (22): 49-53, 2017
• 20 "Sardar Taheruddin Syedna Saheb vs. State of Bombay, 1962. AIR 1962 SC 853"
• 21 "S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India, 1994. (1994) 2 SCR 644, AIR 1994 SC 1918, (1994)3 SCC 1"
• 22 "S. Balakrishnan Pandiyan vs. the Superintendent of Police, 2014. (2014) 7 MLJ 651"
• 23 Mahmood, Tahir., "Religion and the Secular State: National Reports" International Center for Law and Religion Studies 387-401, 2011
• 24 Baird, Robert D., "Religion an Personal Law in Secular India: A Call to Judgment" Indiana University Press 145-192, 2001
• 25 "Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969"
• 26 Fischer-Lescano, Andreas, "Regime-Collisions: The Vain Search for Legal Unity in the Fragmentation of Global Law" 25 (25): 999-1046, 2004
• 27 "Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act(POCSO), 2012"
• 28 "Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936"
• 29 India Today Web Desk, "New National Policy for Women Empowerment unveiled: All you want to know"
• 30 Government of India., "National Policy for Women 2016: Articulating a Vision for Empowerment of Women" Ministry of Women and Child Development 2016
• 31 "Muslim Women’s Quest For Equality vs. Jamiat Ulma-I-Hind, 2015. Suo Motu Writ (C) No. 2 of 2015"
• 32 "Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Ordinance, 2019"
• 33 "Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, 2018 (Bill No. 181 of 2018)"
• 34 "Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, 2017 (Bill No. 247 of 2017)"
• 35 "Muslim Personal Law Application Act, 1937"
• 36 Menski, Wenner F., "Modern Indian Family Law" Curzon Press 2001
• 37 Merry, Sally Engle, "Legal Pluralism" 22 : 869-896, 1988
• 38 Rouland, Norbert, "Legal Anthropology" Athlone Press 1994
• 39 Moore, Sally Falk, "Law and Social Change: The Semi-Autonomous Social Field as an Appropriate Subject of Study" 7 (7): 719-746, 1973
• 40 "Kazis Act, 1880"
• 41 "Kanagavalli vs. Saroja, 2002. AIR 2002 Mad 73"
• 42 "Ishrat Jahan vs. Union of India and others, 2016. Writ Petition(C) No. 665 of 2016"
• 43 Sharma, Madhuri, "International Obligations toward Gender Justice: Judicial Gravels for Indian Dilemmas" 6 (6): 65-74, 2013
• 44 "Indian Registration Act, 1908"
• 45 "Indian Panel Code(IPC), 1860"
• 46 "Indian Evident Act, 1872"
• 47 "Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1987"
• 48 Smith, Donald Eugene, "India as a Secular State" Princeton University Press 2015
• 49 "Hindu Marriage Act, 1995"
• 50 "Gulshan Parveen vs. Union of India and others, 2016. Writ Petition(C) No. 327 of 2016"
• 51 Krisch, Nico, "Fundamental Concepts for International Law: The Construction of a Discipline" 1-18, 2015
• 52 "Foreign Marriage Act 1969"
• 53 Herklotz, Tanja., "Feminist Dilemmas: The Challenges in Accommodating Women’s Rights within Religion-Based Family Law in India" Rapoport Center 1-19, 2018
• 54 Agrawal, K.B, "Family Law in India" Wolters Kluwer Law & Business 2010
• 55 "Criminal Law(Amendment) Ordinance, 2018"
• 56 Teubner, Gunther, "Constitutional Fragments: Social Constitutionalism and Glottalization" Oxford University Press 2014
• 57 "Code of Criminal Procedure(CrPC), 1973"
• 58 Government of India, "Census of India, 2011"
• 59 PTI, "Cabinet nod to ordinance on Triple Talaq Jaitley" The Week
• 60 "Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act, 1886"
• 61 "Baljit Kaur & Anr. vs. State of Punjab & Anr., 2008. (2008) 151 PLR 326"
• 62 "Atiya Sabri vs. Union of India and others, 2017. Writ Petition(C) No. 43 of 2017"
• 63 "Anand Marriage Act, 1909"
• 64 "Aafreen Rehman vs. Union of India and others, 2016. Writ Petition(C) No. 288 of 2016"
• 65 Time of India, "100 cases of instant triple talaq in the country since the SC Judgement"