Author: Ashok Kumar Ratan, Assam University, Silchar
Abstract
The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) represents one of the most hotly debated and ideologically polarising topics in Indian constitutional and legal discourse. Rooted in the Directive Principles of State Policy under Article 44, the UCC envisions a single civil law for all citizens, governing particular matters like marriage, divorce, heritage, and relinquishment that apply to all citizens, regardless of their religion, community, or gender. In India, particular laws presently differ across religious communities, meaning that Muslims, Hindus, Christians, and others are governed by their separate religious particular laws. In India, personal laws currently differ across religious communities, meaning that Muslims, Hindus, Christians, and others are governed by their respective religious personal laws. Proponents argue it is necessary for gender justice and national integration, while opponents view it as a potential threat to religious freedom and cultural autonomy.
Introduction
India’s legal system, while unified in its criminal and commercial frameworks, remains fragmented in civil matters due to the presence of religion-based personal laws. These personal laws derive from various sources: scriptures, customs, religious texts, and colonial legislation. The proposed Uniform Civil Code (UCC) seeks to bring all citizens under a single umbrella of secular civil law, promoting equality before the law as envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Yet, the concept of the UCC has consistently raised concerns about its feasibility, desirability, and constitutional validity in a multi-religious nation. This leads to the essential question: Is the UCC a progressive step toward legal equality, or is it a legal imposition on India’s rich cultural diversity?
Constitutional and Legal Framework
The idea of a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) finds its constitutional foundation in Article 44 of the Indian Constitution, which is a part of the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP). Article 44 explicitly states: “The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.” Being a directive principle under Part IV, it is not enforceable by courts, but it lays down an important goal for the legislature to achieve—a uniform set of personal laws governing marriage, divorce, inheritance, and adoption for all citizens, regardless of their religion. The inclusion of Article 44 was a reflection of the framers’ intention to eventually bring about legal uniformity in civil matters while also balancing the diversity of India’s pluralistic society.
The constitutional vision of UCC, however, intersects and sometimes conflicts with the Fundamental Rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution, particularly Articles 14 and 25.
While Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws, Article 25 protects the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion. The key legal and academic debate is whether religious personal laws can be upheld when they violate the principle of equality, especially in matters related to gender justice. The courts have increasingly leaned towards constitutional morality, asserting that fundamental rights like gender equality and personal liberty must override discriminatory religious practices.
During the Constituent Assembly Debates, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the principal architect of the Constitution, was a vocal proponent of the UCC. He maintained that in a secular democracy, religion should be separated from personal law, and all citizens should be treated equally in matters of civil rights. However, recognizing the sensitivities of a newly independent and religiously diverse nation, Ambedkar also noted that the UCC should not be imposed immediately but could be gradually adopted when the society was ready.
The judiciary has repeatedly addressed the issue of UCC in landmark judgments. In the Shah Bano case (1985)The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Muslim woman’s right to maintenance under secular law (Section 125 CrPC), despite opposition from conservative religious groups. The Court also lamented the lack of a UCC, suggesting that its absence was a cause of legal uncertainty and injustice. In the Sarla Mudgal case (1995), the Court again emphasized the need for a UCC to prevent the exploitation of personal laws, particularly in cases involving conversion for polygamy. More recently, in the Shayara Bano case (2017), the practice of instant triple talaq was declared unconstitutional, reaffirming the Supreme Court’s stance that personal laws must comply with the principles of justice, dignity, and equality.
From a legislative perspective, matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, and adoption fall under Entry 5 of the Concurrent List (List III) of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. This means that both the Parliament and State Legislatures have the power to enact laws on these subjects. This provision enables experimentation at the state level and has allowed Goa to function under a common civil code, inherited from Portuguese rule, though with some exceptions for specific communities. Goa is often cited as an example of the feasibility of UCC implementation, albeit in a relatively homogenous and small population.
In 2018, the 21st Law Commission of India reviewed the idea of a Uniform Civil Code and concluded that a full-fledged UCC was “neither necessary nor desirable at this stage.” Instead, it recommended reforming personal laws to eliminate discrimination and promote equality within religious communities. The Commission emphasized that equality should be ensured within communities rather than between them; thus, Personal Laws in India.
India’s legal framework reflects its rich religious, cultural, and ethnic diversity, especially through the coexistence of multiple personal laws that govern civil matters like marriage, divorce, maintenance, adoption, guardianship, succession, and inheritance. These laws vary across religious communities, making India one of the few secular democracies where different sets of civil laws apply to different citizens based on religion.
Hindu personal law applies to Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs and has been largely codified through post-independence legislations such as the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. These reforms aimed to modernize traditional practices and promote gender equality, particularly in property and maintenance rights.
Muslim personal law, in contrast, remains largely uncodified and is derived from the Quran and Hadith, applied through the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937. It governs issues like nikah (marriage), talaq (divorce), and inheritance. However, the absence of codification has led to inconsistencies, often necessitating judicial intervention to uphold constitutional values like gender justice.
Christian and Parsi personal laws are regulated through colonial-era statutes such as the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872, and the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936. While these have been amended over time to incorporate more progressive provisions, they still reflect religious doctrines and community customs.
Additionally, tribal communities and some regions like Goa follow customary or region-specific laws. Goa, notably, follows a form of Uniform Civil Code, a legacy of Portuguese rule, though with certain exceptions.
This multiplicity of personal laws often results in legal inequality and gender discrimination, prompting calls for a Uniform Civil Code to unify civil laws under a single, secular framework aligned with Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.
Judicial Support and Landmark Cases
The Indian judiciary has consistently expressed concern over the fragmented nature of personal laws in the country and has, on several occasions, emphasized the importance of enacting a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) to ensure legal uniformity and equality. Although Article 44 of the Constitution, which calls for a UCC, falls under the Directive Principles of State Policy and is thus non-enforceable, courts have reiterated that it reflects the constitutional vision of a uniform and secular set of civil laws. The judiciary has underscored that the State must make efforts to realize this vision in a manner that respects India’s pluralistic fabric. Over the years, several landmark judgments have served as strong judicial endorsements for the UCC, as well as critiques of the inconsistencies and gender biases embedded within various personal laws.
One of the earliest and most influential cases in this regard was Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985). In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the right of a divorced Muslim woman to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a provision that applies uniformly to all citizens irrespective of their religion. The Court criticized the gender-discriminatory aspects of Muslim personal law and expressed disappointment over the slow progress in implementing a UCC. Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, delivering the majority opinion, observed that “a common civil code will help the cause of national integration by removing disparate loyalties to laws which have conflicting ideologies.” Despite the progressive judgment, political backlash followed, and the Parliament enacted the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, which restored the primacy of personal law, effectively nullifying the impact of the Shah Bano ruling.
A decade later, in Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India (1995), the Court revisited the issue of conflicting personal laws in the context of religious conversion and bigamy. The case involved Hindu men who had converted to Islam to marry a second time without legally dissolving their first marriage—thus bypassing the monogamy requirement under Hindu law. The Court ruled that such conversions were invalid and held the second marriages to be punishable under the Indian Penal Code. Justice Kuldip Singh stressed the urgent need for a UCC, warning that the absence of uniformity encouraged misuse of personal laws and legal loopholes. The judgment also directed the government to initiate steps toward formulating a UCC.
In Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017), known as the Triple Talaq case, the petitioner challenged the validity of instant triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat), arguing that it violated fundamental rights. A five-judge Constitution Bench struck down the practice by a 3:2 majority, declaring it unconstitutional and in violation of Articles 14 and 21. Although the judgment did not directly address UCC, it reinforced the judiciary’s commitment to aligning personal laws with constitutional values and upholding gender justice.
In John Vallamattom v. Union of India (2003), the Court struck down a discriminatory provision in the Indian Succession Act, which restricted Christian clergy from bequeathing property through wills. Once again, the Court underlined the importance of a uniform civil framework that treats all citizens equally, regardless of religion.
Through these and other rulings, the judiciary has consistently advocated for a UCC—not by imposing it, but by encouraging legislative action that harmonizes personal law reforms with constitutional guarantees of equality, secularism, and justice.
Arguments in Favor of Uniform Civil Code
The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is widely regarded as a vital legal reform aimed at establishing equality, secularism, and national unity in India. One of the foremost arguments in favor of the UCC is that it ensures equality before the law for all citizens, regardless of religion, caste, or gender. At present, different religious communities in India are governed by their respective personal laws in matters such as marriage, divorce, adoption, and inheritance. This has resulted in legal disparities and unequal treatment of individuals. A UCC would provide a common and uniform set of civil laws, thereby upholding Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to equality.
Many existing personal laws are deeply patriarchal and discriminatory, especially toward women. Practices like polygamy, unilateral divorce, and unequal inheritance rights often place women at a disadvantage. A gender-neutral civil code would replace such outdated norms with progressive legislation, ensuring dignity and equal rights for women across all communities.
The UCC is also seen as a means of reinforcing India’s secular character, as civil rights and obligations should not be dictated by religious doctrines in a democratic state. By treating all citizens equally under one civil law, the State can prevent the misuse of religion in legal matters.
A uniform civil code would also help bring people together by creating a shared sense of belonging and a common legal identity, strengthening the feeling of unity as citizens of the same nation.. It would simplify the legal framework, reduce confusion, and ease the burden on courts by replacing multiple personal laws with a single codified system.
Arguments Against Uniform Civil Code
While the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is championed as a means to achieve equality and legal uniformity, it has also attracted strong criticism and resistance from various quarters. The most prominent argument against UCC is that it poses a threat to the cultural and religious diversity that defines India’s pluralistic society. For many communities, personal laws are deeply intertwined with religious identity, traditions, and beliefs, and any attempt to replace or homogenize them is perceived as an infringement on Article 25 of the Constitution, which guarantees the freedom to practice and propagate one’s religion.
Opponents argue that the UCC may be used as a tool of majoritarianism, where the customs of the majority community might dominate and override the practices of minority groups. This fear is particularly prevalent among Muslim, Christian, and tribal communities, who view the UCC as a veiled attempt to impose a uniformity that ignores the nuances of their customs and religious laws. They assert that instead of fostering national integration, a rigid and centrally imposed UCC could lead to alienation, social unrest, and loss of trust in the State.
Another significant concern is that legal pluralism has historically been recognized as a legitimate aspect of India’s democracy. The coexistence of multiple personal laws is seen not as a weakness but as an embodiment of constitutional accommodation and respect for diversity. Critics argue that imposing a uniform law undermines this spirit of inclusivity and may undermine the autonomy of communities to govern their personal affairs according to their traditions.
Furthermore, the timing and political context in which the UCC is often proposed can also lead to suspicion. When floated during politically charged periods, the proposal is viewed as a divisive political agenda rather than a genuine legal reform. Critics believe that rather than pursuing an overarching uniform law, the focus should be on progressive reform within existing personal laws, ensuring that each community evolves its practices in a way that aligns with constitutional principles.
Lastly, there’s the real challenge of actually drafting and putting into place a Uniform Civil Code that’s fair, inclusive, and truly reflects India’s diverse beliefs while still making sure that everyone is treated equally.
Law Commission’s View (2018)
In its 2018 consultation paper titled “Reform of Family Law”, the Law Commission of India, led by Justice B.S. Chauhan, stated that a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is neither necessary nor desirable at present. Emphasizing India’s cultural and religious diversity, the Commission argued that reforming personal laws individually to align with constitutional principles of equality and gender justice is a more effective and respectful approach. It suggested that true secularism means coexistence, not uniformity, and that progressive changes within each personal law can achieve justice without undermining religious freedoms. The Commission’s view offers a middle path, promoting legal equality while preserving pluralism, thus providing a practical roadmap for reconciling personal laws with constitutional values.
Conclusion
The Uniform Civil Code remains a deeply debated issue, balancing equality and justice on one side and religious freedom and cultural diversity on the other. While it promises to eliminate discriminatory practices and promote gender justice, concerns about majoritarian imposition and loss of identity persist. The 2018 Law Commission emphasized reform over uniformity, suggesting that harmonizing personal laws with constitutional values is a more inclusive approach. Moving forward, the focus should be on consensus-building, gradual reform, and respecting diversity, ensuring that legal changes reflect constitutional ideals without alienating the pluralistic fabric of Indian society.
FAQS
Why is the UCC considered important?
The UCC aims to ensure equality before the law, promote gender justice, and strengthen national integration by replacing religion-based personal laws with a common civil framework.
Does the UCC threaten religious freedom?
Critics argue that the UCC may interfere with religious practices. However, supporters believe it will regulate only civil matters, not religious rituals or beliefs.
Is the UCC about abolishing religious laws?
Not entirely. It seeks to reform civil aspects of personal laws, ensuring they are in line with the principles of equality, secularism, and justice
