Author: Nujhat Attar
College: Sinhgad Law College, Pune
To the Point
The Uniform Civil Code remained a line in the Constitution that governments spoke about but rarely acted upon. That changed when Uttarakhand enacted its own Uniform Civil Code in 2024, becoming the first Indian state after independence to replace religion-based personal laws with one common set of rules for marriage, divorce, succession, adoption and live-in relationships. Gujarat followed in March 2026, and Assam introduced its own version soon after, signalling that the idea is no longer confined to political speeches but is now taking concrete legislative shape at the state level. This shift raises a central legal question, can states legislate on a subject that touches religion, personal status and the Concurrent List, and how far can such laws go without colliding with fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution.
Use of Legal Jargon
A UCC-related judgments and bills will frequently come across certain recurring terms. Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) refers to the guidelines contained in Part IV of the Constitution, including Article 44, which the State is expected to apply while making laws, even though they cannot be enforced by a court. Personal Law refers to the body of rules governing marriage, divorce, inheritance and adoption that traditionally varies according to a person’s religion, for instance Hindu law, Muslim personal law, or Christian marriage law. The Concurrent List refers to the list of subjects in the Seventh Schedule on which both Parliament and State Legislatures can make laws; marriage, divorce and succession fall within this list, which is precisely what allows a state like Uttarakhand to legislate on the subject. Justiciability describes the quality of a right being enforceable in a court of law, and it is worth noting that DPSPs are non-justiciable, unlike Fundamental Rights. Repugnancy, under Article 254, is a doctrine used when a state law conflicts with a central law on a Concurrent List subject, and in such cases the central law generally prevails unless the state law has received Presidential assent. Personal Liberty and the Right to Privacy are protections under Article 21 that have been invoked to question provisions such as mandatory registration of live-in relationships. Finally, the Doctrine of Severability is the principle that if one part of a statute is found unconstitutional, only that part is struck down, provided the remaining law can still function independently.
The Proof
Article 44 of the Constitution states that the State shall endeavourto secure a uniform civil code for citizens throughout the territory of India. Being part of the Directive Principles, it has always been aspirational rather than binding, which explains why no uniform code existed at the national level for over seventy years despite the Article being part of the original 1950 Constitution. This changed when the Uttarakhand Legislative Assembly passed the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) Bill on 7 February 2024, which received Presidential assent on 13 March 2024 and was brought into force on 27 January 2025, making Uttarakhand the first state in independent India to implement such a code. The legislation was drafted by a committee headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai. Its key features include a uniform minimum marriage age of 21 years for men and 18 years for women, compulsory registration of marriages and divorces within a prescribed period, a ban on polygamy and bigamy with penal consequences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and equal inheritance rights for sons and daughters. Notably, the Act does not extend to members of Scheduled Tribes, in line with constitutional protections given to tribal customary law.
One of the more debated provisions in the Uttarakhand code requires couples in a live-in relationship to register their relationship with a local registrar. Failure to register within the stipulated period can attract fines and, in some circumstances, imprisonment. Supporters argue this protects partners, particularly women, by creating an official record that can be relied upon in matters like maintenance or inheritance disputes, while critics argue that it amounts to state surveillance over private, consensual adult relationships and could disproportionately affect couples from marginalised communities or interfaith relationships who choose to keep such relationships private for safety reasons.
Other states have since followed Uttarakhand’s lead. On 24 March 2026, the Gujarat Legislative Assembly passed the Gujarat Uniform Civil Code Bill, 2026, after a debate lasting more than seven hours, making it the second state to adopt such a law. The Bill, introduced by Chief Minister Bhupendra Patel, was passed by voice vote after the Congress and the Aam Aadmi Party withheld support and demanded the bill be referred to a select committee. Like Uttarakhand’s law, it excludes Scheduled Tribes and applies to Gujarat residents even when they live outside the state. Soon after, the Government of Assam introduced its own Uniform Civil Code Bill in the State Assembly, making Assam the third state to table such legislation, reinforcing a clear pattern of state-led UCC adoption rather than a single central enactment.
Across all three states, the ruling party has projected the UCC as a step toward gender justice and legal equality, arguing that a common code removes discriminatory practices found in certain personal laws and gives women uniform rights in matters of marriage, divorce and inheritance. Opposition parties have consistently challenged this framing, arguing that a code drafted without adequate consultation with minority communities risks eroding constitutionally protected religious and cultural practices, and have specifically flagged the live-in registration requirement as an intrusion into personal liberty rather than a gender justice measure.
Abstract
This article examines the rapid, state-driven emergence of the Uniform Civil Code in India, tracing its constitutional origin in Article 44 and its practical implementation beginning with Uttarakhand’s 2024 Act, followed by Gujarat’s 2026 Bill and Assam’s 2026 Bill. It explains the key legal concepts involved, including the distinction between justiciable Fundamental Rights and non-justiciable Directive Principles, and the Concurrent List basis that allows states to legislate on personal law subjects. The article then evaluates the most contested feature of these codesmandatory registration of live-in relationships against the constitutional guarantees of personal liberty and privacy recognised by the Supreme Court. It further situates the current debate within earlier judicial pronouncements on uniform civil code and personal law reform, from the Shah Bano case to SarlaMudgal and Shayara Bano, showing how courts have repeatedly nudged the legislature toward Article 44 without ever compelling it to act. The article concludes that while state-level UCC laws mark a genuine legislative milestone, their long-term constitutional validity will likely be tested in courts on grounds of equality, religious freedom and the right to privacy, and a national code, if it comes, will have to navigate the same tensions on a far larger and more diverse scale.
Case Laws
Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985)
In this case, the Supreme Court upheld a Muslim woman’s right to maintenance under the general provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure, rather than being restricted to the personal law applicable to her. The Court used the opportunity to observe that a common civil code would help remove conflicting loyalties among personal laws and aid national integration. The ruling triggered significant political controversy and was followed by legislation narrowing its effect for Muslim women, making this case a foundational reference point in every later UCC discussion.
Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India (1995)
This case dealt with Hindu men converting to Islam solely to contract a second marriage without dissolving the first, taking advantage of differing personal laws. The Supreme Court held such conversions for the purpose of a second marriage to be an abuse of law, and once again urged the government to take steps toward implementing Article 44, observing that successive governments had failed to act on this constitutional mandate despite its clear language.
John Vallamattom v. Union of India (2003)
Here, the Supreme Court struck down a provision of the Indian Succession Act that restricted the testamentary freedom of Christians to bequeath property for charitable or religious purposes, holding it discriminatory. The Court reiterated its long-standing view that a uniform civil code would help remove such inconsistencies across different personal law systems and further the constitutional goal of equality.
Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017)
In this judgment, the Supreme Court declared the practice of instant triple talaq unconstitutional, holding it arbitrary and violative of the fundamental right to equality. While the case did not directly address the Uniform Civil Code, it is regularly cited in UCC discourse because it demonstrated that specific discriminatory practices within a personal law system could be struck down through judicial and later legislative intervention, without necessarily requiring a complete uniform code.
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
Although not a personal-law case, this nine-judge bench decision recognised the right to privacy as a fundamental right flowing from Article 21. It is now central to legal challenges against provisions such as compulsory registration of live-in relationships, since any law that requires disclosure of intimate personal choices to the state must satisfy the tests of legality, legitimate aim and proportionality laid down in this judgment.
Conclusion
The Uniform Civil Code has moved from being a constitutional aspiration confined to Article 44 to an active area of state legislation within the span of just two years. Uttarakhand’simplementation, followed by Gujarat’s enactment and Assam’s introduction of similar bills, shows that political will at the state level can translate the Directive Principle into binding law, using the Concurrent List as the constitutional route. At the same time, these codes have not settled the underlying tension between the goal of legal uniformity and the guarantees of religious freedom, equality and personal liberty found in Part III of the Constitution. Provisions such as mandatory registration of live-in relationships are likely to face sustained constitutional scrutiny, much as earlier personal-law practices did in Shah Bano, Sarla Mudgal, Vallamattom and Shayara Bano. Whether India eventually moves toward a single national code or continues with a patchwork of state-level codes, the judiciary’s role in balancing uniformity with individual rights will remain as important as it has been over the last four decades.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ’s)
Q1. What is the Uniform Civil Code?
It is a proposed or enacted common set of laws governing personal matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance and adoption, applicable to all citizens regardless of their religion, in place of the separate personal laws that currently apply to different religious communities.
Q2. Which state was the first to implement the UCC?
Uttarakhand was the first state in independent India to implement a Uniform Civil Code. The Act was passed in February 2024, received presidential assent in March 2024, and came into force on 27 January 2025.
Q3. Does the UCC apply to Scheduled Tribes?
No. Both the Uttarakhand and Gujarat legislations specifically exclude members of Scheduled Tribes from their application, in recognition of the special constitutional protection given to tribal customary practices.
Q4. Why is the live-in relationship registration provision controversial?
Because it requires couples to formally register their relationship with the state and imposes penalties, including possible imprisonment, for failing to do so. Critics argue this intrudes on the right to privacy and personal liberty recognised in the Puttaswamyjudgment, while supporters argue it offers legal protection to partners in such relationships.
Q5. Is Article 44 legally enforceable?
No. Article 44 is a Directive Principle of State Policy under Part IV of the Constitution. Directive Principles are not enforceable in a court of law, but they are considered fundamental in the governance of the country, and courts have repeatedly encouraged the legislature to act on them.
Q6. Is there a national Uniform Civil Code in force in India?
As of now, there is no single Uniform Civil Code applicable across the entire country. The UCC currently exists only as state legislation, implemented in Uttarakhand and enacted or introduced in Gujarat and Assam respectively.
Q7. Can a state make laws on marriage and divorce?
Yes. Marriage, divorce and succession are subjects on the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule, which allows both Parliament and State Legislatures to legislate on them, subject to the rule that a central law generally prevails in case of conflict unless the state law has received Presidential assent.
