Author: PRERNA SINHA, 2nd year B.A.LL.B (Hons.) student, O.P. Jindal Global University
Abstract
The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) seeks to unify and codify personal laws across religions in matters like marriage, divorce, succession, and adoption. Rooted in the Constitution’s Directive Principles, the UCC is seen as essential to uphold equality and gender justice. However, political misuse, selective outrage, and poor engagement with minorities have often turned this constitutional dream into a divisive wedge issue.
The Uniform Civil Code is a complex intersection of law, religion, and politics. While it is envisaged as a means to promote uniformity, secularism, and gender equality, its selective invocation by political actors—often targeting minority communities—has hindered its inclusive adoption. Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is frequently presented as a means of achieving legal equality, especially for women. However, the Goan and Uttarakhand Civil Codes’ actual implementations seem to indicate otherwise. The Goan Civil Code, which is frequently referred to as India’s de facto UCC, requires joint ownership of assets acquired during marriage and community property regimes. This gives both spouses equal rights in matrimonial property, which on the surface seems to promote gender parity but in reality has a strong patriarchal undertone. For instance, even though property is legally held jointly men frequently still have the majority of the decision-making authority, particularly when it comes to property alienation. Additionally, the story of uniformity is complicated by the law’s unequal treatment of Catholics and non-Catholics, particularly in areas of succession and adoption. Other than that the right to will for a married man or woman is limited to half of his/her share in the properties, and the will has to have the consent of both the spouses. Although the Goan Civil Code, which is a holdover from Portuguese colonial law, is frequently commended for permitting prenuptial agreements (prenups) and establishing a “community property” regime, a closer examination shows that these clauses can also serve to further gendered and class-based inequality. In Goa, couples can select from a variety of property regimes through prenuptial agreements: Property community, Property separation, Dotal regime (based on dowries)
However, this “choice” is rarely free or well-informed. Women may be pressured by men (particularly those from upper-class or upper-caste families) to accept property separation, depriving them of joint marital assets. When they get married, women might not have the legal knowledge or negotiating power to reach a just agreement. Therefore, rather than reflecting true autonomy, prenuptial agreements frequently reflect the disparity in bargaining positions that currently exists.
Use of Legal Jargon
Secularism: A constitutional doctrine that mandates state neutrality in matters of religion, as reaffirmed in S. R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994).
Constitutional Morality: A jurisprudential principle that promotes values enshrined in the Constitution, even if it contradicts societal customs or majority opinion.
Personal Laws: Religious-based laws governing marriage, divorce, maintenance, succession, etc., applicable to respective communities.
Reasonable Classification: Under Article 14, the state can make distinctions if it is based on intelligible differentia and has a rational nexus to the objective.
Non-justiciable: Directive Principles (like Article 44) cannot be enforced by courts but must guide governance.
Pluralism: The coexistence of multiple value systems in a diverse society like India.
Judicial Review: Power of courts to test the constitutionality of laws and executive actions.
The Proof
Laws that respect women’s rights can be applied consistently to all communities but the laws that disregard women’s rights can also be applied consistently to all communities. In other words, they may discriminate uniformly as well. The family laws of Goa also teach us that. Alberta alerts us not to mistaken Goan civil code as equality but to take it as uniformity of different shade.
Uttarakhand’s recent adoption of a state-level UCC in 2024. It is presented as a gender-just intervention that requires live-in relationships to be registered and grants sons and daughters equal inheritance rights. But civil society and feminist organizations swiftly voiced their disapproval, arguing that while the code provides formal equality, it ignores real social injustices, such as women’s restricted access to institutional support, financial resources, and legal literacy. The provisions of mandatory registration of live-in relationships does not safeguard women, and instead hampers their freedom and puts them under scrutiny by State and society.
In terms of inheritance the Uttarakhand civil code follows HSA but still it retained the hierarchy of class 1 heirs and The Hindu Succession Act states that a married Hindu woman’s class I heirs do not include her own parents, while a Hindu man’s class I heirs include his mother but not his father which clearly doesn’t help bringing gender equality but glorifying acceptance of women not having authority to decide how her property devolves. If the government is committed to gender equality within the family, it must make provisions for a matrimonial property regime.
Constitutional Context and Purpose
The Constituent Assembly Debates reflect the tension: While Dr. B.R. Ambedkar strongly supported UCC to ensure equality and reform, several Muslim members opposed it, fearing loss of religious freedom.
Despite being non-justiciable, the Supreme Court has frequently interpreted Article 44 as an essential feature of a secular democracy.
Statutory and Social Realities
Hindu Code Bills (1955-56): Codified Hindu personal laws regarding marriage, adoption, and succession. However, no such codification exists for Muslims, Christians, or Parsis in a uniform manner.
Goa Civil Code: Often cited as a working model of UCC in India, Goa implements a Portuguese Civil Code uniformly for all citizens irrespective of religion, with minor exceptions. However, even this model has internal discrepancies.
Gender Inequality in Personal Laws:
Muslim women can be unilaterally divorced (triple talaq – now unconstitutional).
Christian women face more stringent grounds for divorce (until amendments).
Hindu daughters could not inherit equally until 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act.
Case Laws
Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985)
Landmark case where the Supreme Court upheld a divorced Muslim woman’s right to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, which is a secular provision.
Justice Chandrachud strongly recommended implementation of UCC.
Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India (1995)
The Court criticized men converting to Islam solely to evade monogamy under Hindu law.
The Court observed: “There is an unambiguous need for a UCC to promote national integration.”
John Vallamattom v. Union of India (2003)
A Christian priest challenged Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act, which restricted Christian donations.
Supreme Court struck it down and emphasized the need for uniformity.
Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) – Triple Talaq Case
Declared instant triple talaq unconstitutional.
Majority of the judges acknowledged that religious practices violating Article 14 and 15 cannot be protected under Article 25.
Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018) – Sabarimala Case
Although not about UCC, the decision affirmed constitutional morality over patriarchal religious norms, reinforcing the logic behind UCC.
Conclusion
The Uniform Civil Code, in its ideal form, promises legal equality, gender justice, and national integration. However, its weaponisation in political debates, often during elections, raises serious concerns. The UCC must not be rushed or imposed but implemented through dialogue, awareness, codification of all personal laws, and respecting the nation’s pluralistic fabric. Otherwise, it risks becoming a majoritarian imposition, undermining its constitutional promise. The roadmap must balance legal reform with social consensus.
FAQs
Q1: Is UCC against religious freedom?
No. UCC does not interfere with religious rituals or practices (like prayer or festivals). It only seeks to unify civil laws that govern social relations like marriage, divorce, inheritance, etc., to ensure equality and justice.
Q2: Why is there resistance to UCC?
Resistance stems from fears of cultural erasure, majoritarian bias, and lack of proper consultation. Many communities fear that UCC might override their customs without ensuring their voice in its formulation.
Q3: Has any state in India implemented UCC?
Yes. Goa follows a uniform civil code under the Portuguese Civil Code (1867), but with exceptions like allowing Hindu men to practice bigamy under specific conditions. Hence, it’s not fully uniform in practice.
Q4: Is UCC a recent demand?
No. The demand for UCC dates back to pre-independence debates and was actively discussed in the Constituent Assembly. It has been endorsed in numerous Law Commission Reports (notably the 21st Law Commission in 2018 and the 22nd in 2023).
Q5: What is the alternative to UCC?
An alternative could be progressive codification of all personal laws with gender-just principles and optional civil codes under the Special Marriage Act—allowing citizens to choose between personal or secular laws voluntarily.
