UCC in India: A Political and Constitutional Conundrum

“A unified code is imperative both for protection of the oppressed and promotion of national unity and solidarity. But the first step should be to rationalise the personal law of the minorities to develop religious and cultural amity.“ - Justice RM Sahai in the Sarla Mudgal Case

India is a diverse country, with people of different religions, castes, colours, creeds, and cultures living together. They all have their own customs and practices for marriages, divorce, and succession. The Muslims of West Bengal share more cultural practices and customs with the Hindus of West Bengal than with the Muslims of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. People from different cultures live together in colonies and celebrate all their festivals together, defining the beauty of India. Articles 25, 26, 27, and 28 of the Constitution of India grants everyone freedom of conscience and the right to profess, propagate, and practice religion. At the same time, Article 44 of the Constitution under the Directive Principle of State Policy places a duty on the states to make a uniform civil code throughout the country. Although the Directive Principles of State Policy are not justiciable, they act as a guiding principle for the state. So, what is the uniform civil code?

Uniform Civil Code (UCC) means a common set of laws governing every person regardless of their religion, gender, or community in the matters of marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption, maintenance, and succession. Many people urge that the implementation of UCC will ensure that people of different religions are treated equally, which is a fundamental right under Article 21.

Historical Background

The origin of UCC dates back to British rule in India when the government framed uniform laws for crimes, evidence, and contracts on the recommendation of the Lex Loci Report in 1840. However, personal laws of Hindus and Muslims were kept outside of this uniformity of the law. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar put the proposal to accept the Uniform Civil Code in the Constituent Assembly; however, Muslim representatives raised their voices in favour of retaining personal laws on religious enshrines. Earlier, Goa was the only state with a Uniform Civil Code, which was implemented during the Portuguese colonial rule through the Portuguese Civil Code in 1867. After the integration of Goa into India, the Portuguese Civil Code was retained in 1987. However, the UCC of Goa is not as uniform as people claim because it has certain exceptions in it. Hindu men are allowed to do polygamy under certain conditions. After independence, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru introduced the Hindu Code Bill in the Parliament in 1954 and stated that it was not the time in India to push UCC.

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has consistently pushed for the implementation of UCC in the country. The party promised to implement it during the 2019 Lok Sabha election. In 2022, BJP-ruled Uttarakhand state established a five-member expert committee to study the scope of UCC in the state and draft a bill. The Uttarakhand state assembly passed the Bill in 2024 and became the second state in India to implement UCC, which came into effect on 27th January, 2025.

Constitutional Dimensions and Judicial Interpretations of UCC

The Uniform Civil Code is mentioned in Article 44 of the Constitution under the Directive Principle of State Policy (DPSP). DPSP is not justiciable in a court of law; however, it works as the guiding principle for the state. The basic idea behind the UCC is that there is no necessary connection between religion and personal law in a civilised society. On the other hand, Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees religious freedom, affirming citizens’ right to follow their beliefs and conscience. Marriage, divorce, inheritance, and adoption are an integral part of religious practice. The implementation of UCC will interfere with these rights guaranteed under Article 25. Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality before law and states that all individuals should be treated equally without any discrimination. The implementation of UCC is like trying to fit the people of different religions and cultures into a one-size-fits all framework. Minority communities argue that UCC is basically an attempt to impose majority (Hindu) norms. Under the Uniform Civil Code, Uttarakhand, 2024; Scheduled Tribe (STs) as defined under Article 366(25) of the Constitution, are exempt. The Code does not apply to them, acknowledging the customary laws and traditions of tribal communities. However, Muslims are not given such an exemption despite the fact that Muslims have a different system of marriage, divorce, and inheritance. Article 26, which safeguards the autonomy of religious groups to manage their religious affairs, conflicts with UCC’s idea of uniformity. The implementation of UCC may destroy the cultural and religious identity, traditions and beliefs. Consequently, the challenge lies in balancing these contending constitutional principles— ensuring equality and uniformity on one side while safeguarding religious and cultural independence on the other side. Article 44 comes under DPSP, and Articles 14, 25, 26, and 27 are the fundamental rights. The key distinction is that the former is not mandatory to implement, whereas the latter are.

The Supreme Court in Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 635 felt the need for a Uniform Civil Code in the country and directed the Government of India to file an affidavit indicating what efforts were made by the Government towards securing a “uniform civil code” for the citizens of India. In this case, the offence of bigamy was committed by a married Hindu man who changed his religion to Islam in order to avoid the consequences of Hindu laws and IPC, as Muslim personal laws allow conditional bigamy. The Supreme Court declared the second marriage void and held the husband as guilty of the offence of bigamy under Section 494 of the IPC. The Apex Court in Lily Thomas v. Union of India, (2000) 6 SCC 224 declared that the Supreme Court has no power to give directions to the Government for the enforcement of the DPSP as mentioned in the Constitution. In the case of Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, (1985) 2 SCC 556, which is also known as the Shah Bano case, the issue was whether a Muslim divorced woman is entitled to get maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC. The Supreme Court held that Section 125 CrPC is a religion-neutral provision and applies to all regardless of their religious beliefs. The Court emphasised that the state should have a uniform civil code for the whole country, which would help in resolving ideological conflicts. It is better to dispense justice to all, rather than dispensing it case by case.

The Supreme Court in ABC v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2015) 10 SCC 1 ruled that a Hindu mother is the natural guardian of the illegitimate child by virtue of maternity alone under Section 6 (b) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. Christian unwed mothers, who are governed under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, are required to give notice to the father before being appointed as the guardian of the child, which violates the Right to Privacy of the Christian mother under Article 21. The Apex Court observed that India is a secular nation, and there should be equality before law and equal protection of laws regardless of religion, caste, race, etc. The court underscored the need for a Uniform Civil Code that transcends religious boundaries. In the case of Shayara Bano v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1, Supreme Court discussed whether the practice of triple talaq is a matter of religious faith or part of personal law and ruled that triple talaq is illegal and unconstitutional. Shayara Bano, the petitioner of the case, called the UCC bill ‘beneficial’ for women of the Muslim community. The Apex Court in Ms Jorden Diengdeh v. S.S. Chopra, (1985) 3 SCC 62 felt the need to bring uniformity in Indian marriage and divorce laws as it is difficult to implement personal laws in different cultures.

Arguments For and Against UCC

A long debate was held in the Constituent Assembly on the topic of UCC. Some members spoke in favour of it while others criticised it. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar was its strongest supporter. Various judgements in the Supreme Court indicate that he has always been a supporter of UCC. The advocates of UCC argue that its implementation would serve to strengthen the fundamental principles of India’s secular democracy. It will bring equality before the law as stated in Article 14 and promote justice irrespective of religion, culture, caste, race, etc. Another aspect of equality is women's rights. The implementation of UCC would provide equal rights to women in the domains of inheritance, marriage, divorce, property, etc. As in different personal laws, the rights of women are also different. If a uniform law replaces personal laws, the pressure on the courts will get reduced and make proceedings more efficient. By overtaking personal laws, UCC also reflects embracing modernisation, taking departure from outdated customs and traditions, and aligning all in uniformity.

The critics of the UCC say it is against the idea of secularism. In order to maintain diversity, the state needs to respect the personal laws of each and every faith, which may be hindered by the implementation of UCC. There are approximately 14.2% of Muslim citizens in the country. Hundreds of tribal communities live in different parts of the country. All follow their personal laws in the matter of marriage, divorce, inheritance, etc. It will be a difficult task to impose UCC on everyone. This imposition will clearly violate the rights of people to practice and propagate their religious beliefs.

Conclusion

India is a land of different religions, castes, and cultures, all of which have their own laws to govern their personal matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, etc. Articles 25, 26, and 27 give full rights to the people to practice, propagate, and manage their religious affairs. The implementation of the Uniform Civil Code means interfering with the rights guaranteed to them under the Constitution of India. Recently, Uttarakhand implemented the UCC, and now Gujarat is on the way to implementing it. However, the UCC of Uttarakhand is not uniform in itself, as it exempts the Scheduled Tribes community, allowing them to govern their own affairs according to their customs. If UCC is implemented in the country, it may receive strong opposition and criticism, which may hinder the harmony of the society. The Naga community, in particular, strongly protests against the implementation of UCC. There is a strong threat that this implementation may cause dominance of the majority over the minority. In a democracy, giving more and more rights does not weaken the rule of law, but it restores the faith of people in the system. If UCC is implemented, people of different religions may feel that the state is stopping them from practicing their own religions and imposing a law to appease the majority community.

Md Afan Abdullah is a student pursuing BA LLB (Hons.) from Jamia Millia Islamia.

Edited By: Sidra Aman

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of The Jamia Review or its members.