Author: Farhin Asfar, Durgapur Institute of Legal Studies
To the Point
Uniform Civil Code(UCC) proposes one set of secular civil laws for all citizens irrespective of religion in matters of personal law. Article 44, DPSP, envisages UCC for national integration. UCC Promotes gender justice, equality under Articles 14 & 15, removes discrimination, strengthens secularism, unifies diverse communities under common civil principles. It May appear as cultural imposition on minorities, violates Articles 25 & 26 on religious freedom, risks majoritarian dominance, threatens India’s pluralism. If we see UCC in the sense of judiciary the court had consistently nudged parliament, there is a one example through case law:Shah Bano (1985), Sarla Mudgal (1995), John Vallamattom (2003), Shayara Bano (2017). The present status of Uniform Civil Code is still politically sensitive, with Law Commission (2018) observing UCC may not be necessary but reforms in personal laws are required. In essence, that the UCC debate is not simply about uniformity versus diversity, but about harmonizing constitutional morality with social realities.
Abstract
The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) remains one of the most debated constitutional ideals in India, balancing between the principles of equality, secularism, and national integration, and the preservation of cultural pluralism and religious autonomy. Rooted in Article 44 of the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP), the UCC aims to replace religion-based personal laws with a single secular framework governing marriage, divorce, inheritance, and succession. Proponents argue that the UCC would advance gender justice, equality before law, and unity, while critics warn that it could lead to cultural imposition and majoritarian dominance. Through judicial pronouncements such as Shah Bano v. Union of India (1985), Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India (1995), and Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court has repeatedly urged legislative action. This article critically evaluates whether the UCC is a step towards genuine constitutional fulfilment or risks becoming an instrument of cultural homogenization.
Use of Legal Jargon
The Uniform Civil Code is often framed as the legal embodiment of the principle of lex loci (law of the land), envisaging a universal application of secular personal law. While Article 44 directs the State to secure a UCC, it falls under the Directive Principles, which are non-justiciable but form the conscience of the Constitution. The debate hinges on the tension between jus cogens norms of equality and dignity (Articles 14, 15, and 21) and the guarantees of religious autonomy (Articles 25 and 26).
The Constituent Assembly debates reveal deep divisions. Leaders like Dr. B.R. Ambedkar advocated for UCC as a measure of social reform, while others cautioned against undermining minority rights. This tension embodies the doctrine of constitutional pluralism, where secularism is understood not as strict separation, but as equal respect for all faiths.
In practice, personal laws have perpetuated gender discrimination. Hindu law reforms in the 1950s abolished polygamy and conferred property rights to women, but Muslim personal law still permits practices like polygamy (though restricted) and had, until Shayara Bano, upheld instant triple talaq. Christian and Parsi personal laws too reflected patriarchal bias. This inconsistent framework creates inequality, violating the principle of substantive equality.
Judicial pronouncements have repeatedly invoked constitutional morality over social morality. Courts have stressed that secular law must prevail where personal laws violate fundamental rights. The UCC thus represents not only a legal reform but a step towards harmonizing secularism, gender justice, and national.
The Proof
The necessity of a UCC is evident from historical, constitutional, and social contexts.
1. Historical Trajectory of Personal Laws in India: During British rule, criminal and commercial laws were codified uniformly (Indian Penal Code, 1860; Indian Contract Act, 1872), but personal laws were deliberately left fragmented under the policy of non-interference in religion. The framers of the Constitution debated the UCC extensively in the Constituent Assembly. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar emphasised that UCC is essential for a secular democratic state, whereas leaders like Naziruddin Ahmad raised concerns about minority apprehensions.
Hindu personal laws were reformed through the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Hindu Succession Act, 1956; etc. However, Muslim personal law was left largely uncodified, resulting in asymmetry and gender injustices.
2. Constitutional Proof: Article 44 reflects a positive obligation on the State, even if not enforceable. In Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), the Supreme Court held that DPSPs are fundamental to governance and cannot be ignored. Article 14 guarantees equality before law and equal protection of laws. Personal laws that deny women equal rights in inheritance (Danial Latifi v. Union of India (2001)) or divorce (Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017)) stand in violation of this guarantee. Discriminatory personal laws compromise dignity, and hence a UCC is constitutionally justified.
3. Socio-Political Proof: Consistently demand reform in personal laws, particularly Muslim women’s movements post-Shah Bano and Triple Talaq.The perception of UCC as a tool for assimilation into majority Hindu culture. Proof of this apprehension lies in resistance even from Christian and Parsi groups. If we see the context of Goa Model, The Goa is the only state with a uniform civil code (Portuguese Civil Code, 1867) applicable to all communities. While cited as a success, critics point out that it still retains certain gendered inequalities.
Case Laws
1. Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum
(1985)
In the case of Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, The Supreme Court held that a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to maintenance under secular criminal law. The Court strongly advocated for the implementation of UCC, observing that personal laws must not override constitutional guarantees of equality and justice. The decision triggered political uproar, leading to the enactment of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, which diluted the judgment.
2. Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India (1995)
In the case of Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India, The Court held that such conversions were invalid if motivated by polygamy, and the first marriage would still subsist. The judgment highlighted the misuse of personal laws and reaffirmed the need for UCC to prevent exploitation of legal loopholes.
3. John Vallamattom v. Union of India (2003)
In the case of the John Vallamattom v. Union of India,A Christian priest challenged Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which restricted Christians from bequeathing property for religious or charitable purposes. The Court struck down the section as unconstitutional, discriminatory, and violative of Article 14. The judgment again emphasized the need for UCC to harmonize laws across religions.
Conclusion
The debate on the Uniform Civil Code oscillates between two constitutional ideals: equality and secularism on one hand, and religious freedom and cultural pluralism on the other. While the UCC has the potential to eliminate discriminatory practices, especially against women, its implementation must be sensitive to India’s multicultural fabric. The judiciary has repeatedly underlined the urgency of reform, but Parliament has deferred action, often due to political apprehensions of alienating minorities.
A middle path seems more pragmatic gradual, consultative reforms rather than an abrupt imposition. Harmonization of personal laws, gender-just amendments, and voluntary adoption of a uniform code may pave the way for eventual consensus. The ultimate goal must be to ensure that the constitutional promise of equality (Articles 14–15) and dignity (Article 21) triumphs without compromising religious liberty (Articles 25–26).
Thus, the UCC must not be seen merely as “One Nation, One Law,” nor dismissed as “Cultural Imposition.” Instead, it should emerge as a progressive legal instrument of social justice, carefully balancing India’s unity with its cherished diversity.
FAQS
1. What is the Uniform Civil Code (UCC)?
The Uniform Civil Code refers to a common set of personal laws that would apply to all citizens of India irrespective of their religion, caste, or community. It covers matters like marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption, and succession.
2. Why is UCC mentioned in the Indian Constitution?
Article 44 of the Directive Principles of State Policy in the Indian Constitution encourages the State to work towards a Uniform Civil Code to promote national integration and equality before law.
3. Does UCC violate the right to religion under Article 25?
Not necessarily. The Supreme Court has clarified that personal laws based on religion can be reformed if they conflict with principles of equality and fundamental rights. UCC aims at uniformity in civil laws, not religious practices or rituals.
4. What are the criticisms against UCC?
It is often seen as a threat to cultural and religious diversity. Minority communities fear that it may impose the majority’s practices on them. Critics argue that reforms within personal laws, rather than a uniform code, may be a better approach.
5. Has the Supreme Court given any observations on UCC?
Yes, In several judgments such as Shah Bano Case (1985), Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India (1995), and John Vallamattom v. Union of India (2003), the Court emphasized the importance of enacting a UCC to secure justice and equality.
