Author: Ashutosh Chaudhary, WBNUJS Kolkata
To the Point
India is a diversity rejoicing nation, but the very pluralism has entrenched inequalities in law over time by allowing the operation side by side of numerous personal laws founded on faith. It is the idea of a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) as projected in Article 44 of the Constitution, which aims at doing away with these piecemeal personal laws and instead have a common civil code that will govern all citizens, irrespective of religion or gender. This paper will discuss the arguments supporting the adoption of a UCC as well as the underlying apprehensions of its adoption. It approaches the constitutional, social, and political aspects of the debate with scepticism, and portrays the UCC as a revolutionary but highly controversial legal change.
Abstract
The debate over the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in India encapsulates one of the most enduring constitutional and sociopolitical dilemmas: how to balance equality before law with the right to religious freedom. The UCC, as enshrined in Article 44 of the Indian Constitution, envisions the replacement of religion-specific personal laws with a unified legal framework governing marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption, and maintenance. While this concept aims to promote gender justice, legal uniformity, and national integration, its implementation has been postponed due to intense opposition from religious communities, fears of majoritarian imposition, and the politicization of legal reform.
This article offers a multidimensional analysis of the UCC, examining its constitutional basis, historical background, judicial perspectives, and societal implications. based on court rulings such as Shah Bano Begum (1985), Sarla Mudgal v., and Mohd. Ahmed Khan. Indian Union (2015), as well as Shayara Bano v. The Union of India (2017) article, among other things, shows how personal laws—particularly those pertaining to women—do not align with the equality and non discrimination principles of the constitution. It further incorporates insights from scholars like Madhur Aggarwal, who argues that the UCC is a necessary instrument for harmonizing personal laws while respecting religious plurality, and Shalina A. Chibber, who advocates for a gradual, community-driven approach to legal reform that centers women’s rights.
While supporters claim that the UCC is necessary to establish a genuinely secular and equitable India, detractors like Aarif Mohd Waza warn against the sudden, top-down imposition of universal regulations devoid of societal agreement or cultural sensitivity. The article thus evaluates competing narratives and proposes a balanced roadmap for reform—one that fosters dialogue, protects minority rights, and advances constitutional morality.
Ultimately, this research contends that the UCC, if implemented through a participatory and inclusive framework, can serve as a vehicle for both legal modernization and social transformation, aligning India’s civil laws with its commitment to justice, equality, and dignity for all citizens.
Use of Legal Jargon
The UCC is based on Article 44 of Directive Principles of State Policy which states that the State should endeavour to provide a Uniform Civil Code to the citizens all over India. This unenforceable article will have to be harmonized with article 25 that guarantees the right to freedom of religion. Article 25 does secure the protection of faith and belief and does not secure the practices that defy the gender justice and public order as explained by Madhur Aggarwal in Article 25, Harmonizing Diversity (Aggarwal, Harmonizing Diversity, 2023).
The difference is fundamental: the State has the constitutional authority to control any religious practices that encroach upon the common good or entail the breach of the fundamental rights (see State of Bombay v. This was held in Narasu Appa Mali, AIR 1952 Bom 84; Aggarwal, 2023).
The Proof
India’s civil law landscape is characterized by legal pluralism, where personal laws differ across religious communities. While this system accommodates cultural and religious diversity, it often results in gender-based discrimination, inequality before law, and judicial inconsistency—particularly in matters of marriage, divorce, maintenance, guardianship, and inheritance.
The structural issue with personal laws is that they are as contrary to constitutional values, particularly Articles 14 (equality before law), 15 (non-discrimination) and 21 (right to life and dignity), as they can be. An example was the traditional practice under Muslim personal law of allowing men unilateral divorce (talaq-e-biddat), and polygamy, but granting women few rights to divorce or property. Before the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act of 2005, daughters were also not given equal coparcenary rights under the Hindu personal laws. Christian women have been fighting so long with the contents of the Indian Divorce Act that discriminated against them as opposed to men. Such contradictions explain why there is a dire necessity to establish secular and gender-neutral civil laws (Chibber, 2008).
Judicial pronouncements have repeatedly emphasized this. The Supreme Court maintained a divorced Muslim woman’s entitlement to maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC, a secular provision, in Shah Bano (1985). . The Court’s judgment criticized the use of religion to override constitutional mandates and called for the implementation of a UCC to ensure equal treatment of women regardless of religion. However, the Parliament passed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) statute, 1986 in response to political pressure, which attempted to weaken this protection. In Daniel Latifi v. To safeguard the right of women to equitable maintenance, the Court later misinterpreted this provision (Union of India, 2001).
Similarly, in Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India (1995), the Court addressed the issue of Hindu men converting to Islam to practice bigamy, holding such conversions invalid if done to circumvent Hindu personal law. In an urgent appeal to the State to act on Article 44, the Court warned that absence of a UCC would encourage legal maneuvering and religious abuse.
Beyond case law, scholars such as Madhur Aggarwal argue that the UCC is vital to resolve contradictions between Fundamental Rights and personal laws, and emphasize that the UCC aims to standardize laws of marriage, divorce, maintenance, and succession—not interfere with religious practices or faith (Aggarwal, Harmonizing Diversity, 2023). He cites cases like State of Bombay v. Narasu Appa Mali (1952) to show how the judiciary once upheld the immunity of personal laws from constitutional scrutiny, but suggests this position is now outdated in light of gender justice principles.
In his analysis, Aarif Mohd Waza recognizes the equality potential that the UCC holds but he also identifies difficulties in its implementation. He outlines possible pitfalls: the opposition of religious groups, the absence of social consensus, the politicization, and appreciations of cultural homogenization. Another approach, he proposes, would be to get harmony of personal laws in communities first, to establish a convergence of law over time, and to make law-making participatory, only after which he would implement a UCC in full (Waza, Implementation Challenges and Potential Evils, 2023).
Shalina Chibber lays up the arguments in the context of gender equality in the Indiana Law Journal. According to her, the current personal laws are harmful to women and prevent internal religious reform. In her suggestion, she insists that women from all communities actively participate in the creation of any UCC and that the only code that will be accepted and genuine is a gender-just one that is developed by the community (Chibber, Charting a New Path, 2008).
Finally, some reforms have already shown what is possible: Goa follows a common civil code under the Portuguese Civil Code, which governs all communities and ensures a basic level of gender and legal uniformity. It demonstrates that uniform civil frameworks can coexist with religious pluralism, provided they are crafted with sensitivity and consultation.
In sum, the existing fragmented personal law system:
Violates constitutional equality guarantees, especially for women;
Encourages forum shopping and religious manipulation;
Prevents the Constitution’s ideal of secularism from being realized;
Requires constant judicial intervention, creating legal uncertainty;
Preserves patriarchal standards in the name of religious liberty.
These conflicts could be resolved through a thoughtfully composed UCC that is based in constitutional morality and public discourse and that would create civil uniformity without religious obliteration. India is already heading towards a de facto UCC in the form of laws harmonisation and court-initiated reforms, or what he terms a “mirror image” of legal uniformity that would allow the maintenance of pluralism but would urge justice, as explained in The Uniform Civil Code Debate in Indian Law by Werner Menski.
Case Laws
Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985)
By granting support to a divorced Muslim woman under CrPC Section 125, the Supreme Court maintained the supremacy of secular over personal laws. The Court urged greatly that a UCC be put in place to promote gender justice and legal uniformity
Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India (1995)
This case dealt with Hindu men converting to Islam to practice bigamy. The Court reaffirmed the necessity of a UCC to avoid the abuse of religious freedom and ruled that conversions made in order to get around personal laws were unlawful.
John Vallamattom v. Union of India (2003)
The Supreme Court struck down Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (which restricted Christian charitable bequests), stating it violated Article 14. The judgment stressed the need for uniform civil laws to uphold equality.
State of Bombay v. Narasu Appa Mali (1952)
The Bombay High Court held that personal laws are not “laws” as meant by the constitution as they are not subject to Article 13. This decision has been bitterly fought and challenged because it shields discriminatory actions against judicial scrutiny although it remains legally binding.
Daniel Latifi v. Union of India (2001)
This judgment was given in reply to the outcry over the Shah Bano case, which validated the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. Strongly balancing the secular and religious laws, the interpretation of the law by the Court upheld the right to maintenance.
Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2000)
This case reaffirmed the principles in Sarla Mudgal, holding that conversion to Islam for contracting a second marriage while the first subsisted (under Hindu law) is invalid. It warned against abuse of religious conversions and strengthened the demand for a UCC.
Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017)
A five-judge constitutional bench declared the practice of talaq-e-biddat (instant triple talaq) unconstitutional, asserting it violates fundamental rights of Muslim women. This ruling is a landmark in the movement toward a UCC by upholding constitutional morality over religious customs.
Conclusion
Article 44 of the Indian Constitution, which calls for equality, unity, and fairness among all communities regardless of faith, contains a constitutional promise that has not yet been fulfilled: the Uniform Civil Code (UCC). Although this vision has been approved by a number of Supreme Court judgments, including Shah Bano (1985), Sarla Mudgal (1995), and Shayara Bano (2017), its realization is still put off because of a combination of political reluctance, cultural apprehensions, and the deeply conservative nature of religious personal laws.
The Argument of the UCC is strong. It aims at doing away with gender inequalities, streamline civil rights and strengthen the secular nature of Indian State. The goal, as Leila Seth stressed in her essay, is not to muzzle religious freedom but to afford equality and the marginalized, particularly women, against patriarchal address of religious texts (Seth, in McSweeney ed., 2008). The same is observed by Madhur Aggarwal who comments that UCC does not in any manner interfere with religious belief but merely rationalizes civil concerns of life, including marriage, divorce, and inheritance, in a way that is healthy to the constitutional values.
However, empathy and inclusivity are necessary to pave the way for a UCC. Aarif Mohd Waza rightly argues that a top-down, coercive approach may lead to social unrest and resistance, particularly among minority communities who fear cultural erasure. A purely legalistic strategy is unlikely to succeed in a country as religiously and culturally diverse as India. Instead, India must adopt a phased, consultative, and community-led process. The UCC must be framed not as a tool of uniformity but as a framework for justice, pluralism, and constitutional morality.
India’s legal evolution already demonstrates a movement toward this goal. Judicial activism has chipped away at discriminatory personal laws, while legislative reforms—such as the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006—show how change is possible within communities. Goa, with its uniform civil code, offers a living model of how diversity and legal uniformity can coexist effectively.
Moreover, as Werner Menski observes, India has developed a sort of “mirror image” of the UCC, through the harmonisation of personal laws without abolishing them: a mixed legal system that preserves pluralism, but establishment of a minimum of justice and equality. Such a model, he contends, could be more tenable and more culturally apt as compared to the strict legal uniformity.
To sum up, the Uniform Civil Code cannot be considered as a homogenising agent but as a tool of equality, dignity and empowerment. It aims at promoting the constitutional ideals of justice, liberty and fraternity, through a common civil rights platform, without disturbing the diverse and colorful spectrum of Indian cultural traditions. To this end, the UCC ought to be anchored on democratic involvement, legality, and most importantly, a moral duty to the universal rights of every citizen especially the most indecisive.
Now is the time not to give up on the dream of the UCC, but to re- dream it, not as a code to be Foisted, but as a consensus to be forged.
FAQs
What is the Uniform Civil Code (UCC)?
UCC is a proposal to replace personal laws based on religion with a single set of secular civil laws for all citizens.
Why is the UCC controversial?
It is seen by some as infringing on religious freedom and minority rights guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution.
How does the UCC promote gender justice?
It seeks to eliminate discriminatory religious practices that adversely affect women, especially in matters like divorce and inheritance.
Is the UCC enforceable today?
Although judges have often pushed the legislature to take action, Article 44 is not enforceable because it is based on the Directive Principles.
What is the best approach to implementing UCC?
A phased and consultative approach that involves reforming existing personal laws and building consensus across communities is considered most effective.
REFRENCES
Madhur Aggarwal, ‘Harmonizing Diversity: Exploring the Prospects of Enacting a Uniform Civil Code in India’ (2023) 3(2) Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law.
Shalina A Chibber, ‘Charting a New Path Toward Gender Equality in India: From Religious Personal Laws to a Uniform Civil Code’ (2008) 83(2) Indiana Law Journal.
Aarif Mohd Waza, ‘Implementation Challenges and Potential Evils of Uniform Civil Code in India: A Multidimensional Analysis’ (2023) 1(1) International Journal Advance of Social Science and Education (IJASSE).
Leila Seth, ‘A Uniform Civil Code Towards Gender Justice’ in Brenda Gael McSweeney (ed), Another Side of India: Gender, Culture and Development (UNESCO 2008).
Sheetal Kumrawat, ‘Should India Have a Uniform Civil Code’ (2018) 4(4) International Journal of Advance Research, Ideas and Innovations in Technology.
Werner Menski, ‘The Uniform Civil Code Debate in Indian Law: New Developments and Changing Agenda’ (2008) 9(3) German Law Journal.
