SANIYA SAYYED, a student of NEW LAW COLLEGE, BHARATI VIDYAPEETH UNIVERSITY, PUNE
To the Point
The Uniform Civil Code (UCC), outlined in Article 44 of the Constitution as a Directive Principle, aims to create a common set of civil laws for all citizens governing marriage, divorce, inheritance, and related matters. Its primary purpose is to eliminate gender-based discrimination present in some religious personal laws, promoting legal uniformity and gender justice within India’s secular framework. In 2024, Uttarakhand became the first state to enact a statutory UCC, mandating registration of marriages and live-in relationships, banning practices like polygamy and halala, and introducing equal inheritance rights across religions except for Scheduled Tribes. Critics raise concerns about privacy infringements and selective targeting of Muslim personal laws, while supporters emphasize the need for gender equality. Religious groups argue the law violates Articles 25 and 26 protecting religious freedom, and political parties warn against federal overreach.
Use of Legal Jargon
- The Directive Principles of State Policy (Articles 36–51) guide the State to promote social welfare, including the Uniform Civil Code under Article 44, but they are non-justiciable and cannot be enforced by courts.
- Personal laws are religious or customary rules governing marriage, divorce, inheritance, etc., varying across communities like Muslims, Hindus, and Christians.
- The Basic Structure Doctrine, established in Kesavananda Bharati (1973), limits Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, protecting core values like secularism and democracy.
- Gender justice ensures equality by addressing discriminatory personal law practices such as polygamy and unequal inheritance.
- Constitutional morality requires governance to uphold constitutional values like liberty and equality, even if they conflict with majority views.
- Federal polity divides power between the Union and states; a national UCC may shift authority from states and communities to the central government.
- Articles 25 and 26 protect religious freedom, allowing individuals and communities to practice and manage religion, which may conflict with a uniform code.
- Collateral obiter are non-binding judicial comments that may influence law interpretation but don’t decide cases.
- Legislative competence refers to Parliament’s or state legislatures’ authority to legislate; a UCC involves Union List powers but also affects state rights and religious autonomy.
The Proof
Article 44 of the Indian Constitution mandates that the State shall strive to implement a Uniform Civil Code for all citizens across India, providing the constitutional basis for the UCC as a Directive Principle of State Policy. However, this directive often comes into constitutional tension with Article 25, which guarantees the freedom of religion and the right to practice religious customs, thus creating a complex legal landscape where personal laws based on diverse religious traditions coexist. The 21st Law Commission Report (2018) critically examined this issue and concluded that implementing a Uniform Civil Code was “neither necessary nor desirable at this stage,” cautioning against hasty reforms without adequate social consensus. Despite this, recent political developments have intensified the debate; notably, Uttarakhand became the first state in 2024 to enact its own version of the UCC, sparking both political support and legal challenges, thereby bringing the issue to the forefront of national discourse. The prominence of UCC in political party manifestos during the 2019 and 2024 general elections further underscores its significance as a critical electoral issue. Supporting the call for reform, societal data from sources like the National Family Health Survey reveal persistent gender inequalities under existing personal laws, while court backlogs related to family law cases highlight the inefficiencies and complexities arising from multiple, religion-based legal systems.Collectively, these legal, political, and social factors highlight the complex challenges and essential reasons driving the continued push for a Uniform Civil Code in India.
Abstract
This article examines the ongoing debate around India’s Uniform Civil Code (UCC), focusing on the Uttarakhand UCC Act, 2024. Rooted in Article 44 of the Constitution, a Directive Principle, the UCC seeks to unify diverse personal laws into a single legal framework promoting gender justice, equality, and constitutional morality. Landmark Supreme Court decisions like Shah Bano Begum (1985) and Sarla Mudgal (1995) highlight the need for such reform to address gender discrimination while respecting parliamentary supremacy in lawmaking. Uttarakhand’s law introduces reforms including mandatory marriage registration, prohibition of polygamy and halala, and equal inheritance rights, with exceptions for Scheduled Tribes. The legislation has sparked debates on privacy, religious freedom, and federalism, illustrating challenges in balancing uniformity with India’s pluralistic society. The article argues for a gradual, inclusive reform process that respects diversity while advancing constitutional values.
Case Laws
1. In Smt. Sarla Mudgal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1995), The Supreme Court dealt with the problem of Hindu men converting to Islam specifically to evade the ban on bigamy imposed by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Court ruled that such conversion does not dissolve the original Hindu marriage, and any subsequent marriage without formal divorce is illegal under Section 494 of the IPC. Justice Kuldip Singh highlighted that using religious conversion as a means to evade legal obligations abuses the constitutional right to freedom of religion. The judgment further urged legislative measures to implement Article 44’s Uniform Civil Code, emphasizing that inconsistent personal laws lead to legal ambiguity and inequality.
Relevance to UCC:
The decision emphasized the urgent need for a Uniform Civil Code to prevent exploitation of personal laws, promote gender justice, and uphold constitutional morality by providing a consistent legal framework for all citizens.
2. In the landmark Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) judgment, the Supreme Court struck down the practice of talaq-e-biddat (instant triple talaq) as unconstitutional by a 3:2 majority. The Court held that this practice violated fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution, emphasizing that instant triple talaq is neither an essential Islamic practice nor supported by the Quran, and thus not protected by Article 25 (freedom of religion). Justice Kurian Joseph notably remarked, “What is bad in theology cannot be good in law,” underscoring the need to reform personal laws that conflict with constitutional principles. The verdict strengthened the demand for a Uniform Civil Code to ensure gender justice and legal equality transcending religious personal laws.
Relevance to UCC:
The ruling exposed the tension between certain religious personal laws and constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination. It strengthened the argument for a Uniform Civil Code that ensures a common legal framework for all citizens, promoting fairness and upholding constitutional morality.
3. In Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018), the Supreme Court struck down the ban on women aged 10 to 50 entering the Sabarimala Temple as unconstitutional by a 4:1 majority. The Court held that this restriction violated women’s fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, and 25, emphasizing that constitutional morality—upholding equality and dignity must override discriminatory traditional practices. Justice Chandrachud observed that freedom of religion is subject to constitutional guarantees of equality and personal liberty. The judgment highlighted the urgent need to reform personal laws and customs that conflict with constitutional values, strengthening the case for a Uniform Civil Code to ensure equal treatment of all citizens regardless of religion.
Relevance to UCC:
The Sabarimala ruling revealed the conflict between discriminatory religious customs and constitutional principles, reinforcing the demand for a Uniform Civil Code that harmonizes personal laws on marriage, divorce, and inheritance to prevent discrimination masked as religious freedom. This case continues to play a significant role in shaping the discourse on the implementation of the Uniform Civil Code in India.
4. In John Vallamattom v. Union of India (2003), the Supreme Court struck down Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which restricted Christians from bequeathing property for religious or charitable purposes without prior approval and a 12-month condition. The petitioner argued that this provision unfairly discriminated against Christians, unlike followers of other religions. The Court held it violative of Article 14, noting it was rooted in colonial bias and incompatible with India’s secular and democratic values. The judgment reinforced that personal laws must conform to constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination.
Relevance to UCC:
This case is a significant step toward the realization of a Uniform Civil Code, as it highlights how religion-specific legal provisions can lead to discrimination. By invalidating a law that imposed an unequal burden on a particular religious community, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the need for a uniform, secular legal framework that treats all citizens equally regardless of faith. The ruling underscores the constitutional vision of legal uniformity and supports the broader argument for implementing the UCC to eliminate inconsistencies and promote equality in personal laws.
Conclusion
The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) stands as a pivotal instrument in India’s journey toward achieving substantive equality, gender justice, and legal uniformity in a constitutionally pluralistic society. Envisioned under Article 44 of the Constitution, the UCC aims to provide a common civil framework governing personal matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, and adoption irrespective of religious affiliation. However, its realization remains fraught with complexities.While the concept has constitutional backing, its practical implementation must carefully balance the protection of individual and collective religious freedoms under Articles 25 and 26 with the need to uphold the primacy of fundamental rights such as equality, non-discrimination, and personal liberty.
Judicial pronouncements in landmark cases like Sarla Mudgal, Shayara Bano, and Sabarimala reflect the Supreme Court’s evolving approach toward promoting constitutional morality over rigid personal law traditions that perpetuate discrimination. These cases have laid a strong judicial foundation by emphasizing the need for uniformity in civil matters and the primacy of individual rights over community customs. However, legal uniformity cannot be imposed in a vacuum. Implementing a nationwide UCC requires transparent dialogue, wide public consultation, and careful accommodation of minority concerns to avoid the perception of cultural majoritarianism.
The recent enactment of the Uttarakhand UCC Act, 2024, signals both opportunity and challenge; it showcases a state-led model of reform, but also reveals the deep-rooted resistance that uniformity initiatives can provoke. As such, a phased, inclusive, and sensitive legislative approach grounded in constitutional values rather than political expediency is essential. If executed thoughtfully, the UCC has the potential not only to harmonize personal laws but also to strengthen India’s commitment to justice, secularism, and national unity without eroding its cherished pluralism.
FAQs
Q1: What is the Uniform Civil Code (UCC)?
A1: UCC refers to a common set of laws governing personal matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, and adoption for all Indian citizens, regardless of their religion.
Q2: Is the UCC currently enforceable in India?
A2: No. Article 44 of the Indian Constitution directs the State to “endeavor” to implement UCC, but it is a Directive Principle of State Policy and not currently enforceable by courts.
Q3: Why is the UCC controversial?
A3: The UCC involves replacing diverse religious personal laws with a single law, which raises concerns about infringement on religious freedoms and cultural identities, especially among minorities.
Q4: How have courts viewed the UCC?
A4: The Supreme Court has repeatedly highlighted the importance of UCC in promoting gender justice and equality, especially in cases like Sarla Mudgal and Shayara Bano, urging legislative action.
Q5: Can states enact their own UCC?
A5: Yes. Personal laws fall under the Concurrent List, allowing states to legislate on the matter unless Parliament enacts a central law.
