The Uniform Civil Code represents ongoing contentions and debates in Indian constitutional law and family law. It has its foundations and secularism, religious freedom and national interests. Article 44 of the Indian Constitution mandates that “the State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India,”.This article mentions that the UCC is a directive principle of state policy rather than a fundamental right.[1] The wording of this specific article shows the framers’ intention of the complex diversity of India and a need for uniformity. This reads like an admission that uniformisation would be a very difficult process, with no timetable given and no clear agenda beyond the eventual aim of greater uniformity.[2] Several tensions remain to balance individual rights, secularism, the role of religion in public life and the state’s authority to regulate religious and personal matters.
The existing parcel matters and religious law in India shows the complexity of personal religious laws that has evolved over centuries and decades. All these laws reflect distinct culture and theological traditions.For instance, Hindu personal law is codified through acts such as the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 and the Hindu Succession Act of 1956. These acts govern the majority Hindu population including Buddhists, Sikhs, and Jains.[3] Muslim personal law is formally recognized through the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act of 1937. It governs marriage, divorce, inheritance, and other family matters.[4] Christian personal law is codified under the Indian Christian Marriage Act of 1872 and the Indian Succession Act of 1925, and the Parsi personal law operates under the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act of 1936.[5] With the presence of so many laws for various religious personal laws, implementing a uniform code would supersede or significantly modify these established frameworks, attempts to establish the secularism of the state, takes away rights granted by personal laws that protect minority rights, repudiating the decades of developed customary and personal law of the religious communities.
Historical Context and Constitutional Foundations
The beginning of the Uniform Civil Code debate can be traced to the colonial period. The British colonizers administrators grappled with the challenge of governing such a religious India. This led to the beginning of the colonial policy for maintaining non interference in personal laws.This was articulated most clearly by Warren Hastings plan of 1772. It established a precedent for allowing the religious communities to be governed respectively by their personal laws, especially in marriage, divorce, inheritance and succession.[6] This policy of non interference was read into the constitution and would continue post independence to influence contemporary debate about UCC. During the Constituent Assembly debates, the framing of Article 44 had intense contentions about the role of religion and the feasibility of implementing a uniform civil code. The categorization was such that the DPSP nature would allow the UCC to be implemented only when the country and public opinion supported the same.[7]
The Constituent Assembly debates depict varying positions on secularism.That directly influenced perspectives of the Uniform Civil Code.[8] There were three main approaches. The “no-concern theory” advocated was by members like K.T. Shah. It demanded strict separation between religion and state and viewed the UCC as essential for creating modern citizens freed from religious divisions. The “equal-respect theory” put forth by K.M. Munshi argued that a secular state should respect all religions equally rather than distance itself from them. This led to support for broad religious practice rights all while maintaining the UCC as a directive principle. The third position furthered to preserve religion as integral to personal identity while opposing state interference in religious matters. The 3 positions influence varying opinions on UCC, some favoring strict separation and saw uniform civil law as necessary for unity and individual citizenship,and others advocating for equal respect for religions were more willing to accommodate personal laws within a framework of gradual reform. Subsequently the Assembly adopted an intermediate in-between position that defined religious freedom broadly as the right to practice religion while relegating the UCC to non-justiciable directive principles.
The Supreme Court’s engagement with the UCC has shown judicial restraint along with calls for legislative action. In the landmark case of Shah Bano Begum v. Mohammed Ahmed Khan, the Court observed that a common civil code would help national integration by removing disparate loyalties to law which have conflicting ideologies, discriminatory in nature, and disadvantageous citizens.[9] In the end the political backlash after this decision demonstrated the complex inertia of judicial interference in personal laws.[10]
Arguments For UCC
Proponents of the UCC put forth the equality argument of Article 14 of the Constitution. They contend that the current system of multiple personal laws creates unequal treatment of citizens based on religious affiliation and potentially violates the fundamental right to equality before law.[11] This argument comes into play where women’s rights to property, divorce, and maintenance vary significantly depending on their religious community and the personal law. The 2018 Law Commission of India report highlighted that “discrimination is not inherent in personal laws, but is a result of the way in which they have been interpreted and applied”. It also noted that certain provisions across various personal law systems do create gender-based inequalities.[12]
The Uniform Civil Code is a promise to bring together all personal laws. All laws on marriage, divorce, adoption, inheritance, and property integrated into a single legal framework. This would be an attempt to ensure justice for all communities in an equal way.[13] Article 44 is often opposed for violating Article 25 (freedom of religion). But in Clause 2 of Article 25 it clarifies that religious freedom does not prevent the state from enacting laws. The argument remains that a lck of UCC is a grave violation of Articles 14–18 that guarantee equality and prohibit discrimination. Many personal laws, importantly those concerning women are unjust. Different laws for different communities create confusion and unequal treatment. For instance, the allowance of child marriage under Muslim Personal Law or the practice of polygamy. This inequality is most harmful to Muslim women. Many Islamic countries like Iran and Morocco have reformed or restricted polygamy through codified laws. And India still lags behind. A common civil code would remove these inconsistencies and support justice and equality across the board. A uniform civil code would create a common national identity and would reduce communal divisions and would promote social cohesion and minimize the potential for religious conflicts arising from differential treatment under the law.[14] The modernization argument is that best features of all personal law systems while eliminating outdated and discriminatory provisions that are against values of gender equality, individual autonomy, and human rights.[15]
Arguments Against UCC
The main concern is not uniformity, but justice. All personal laws— Hindu, Muslim, or otherwise have unjust rules.[16] Each community should reform its own laws from within based on equality and fairness. Actual true change must come through social reform, not legal imposition of a farcical uniformity. For example, Muslim women should lead the movement to fix injustices in Muslim personal law, rather than the government enforcing changes that may not be accepted. Many Muslims are also economically and educationally disadvantaged; focusing on development would help more than pushing a UCC. Groups like AIMPLB argue that Sharia is not man-made but divinely ordained thus, so even Muslims cannot alter it, let alone the state. Lastly, forcing a UCC may appear as a political move or an administrative strategy targeting Muslims. This is avoiding Hindu laws that have avoided codifying things like joint family property, which benefits men.The CC has potential to be used as a tool for communal politics.And it can also represent a false claim of equality. The real justice should be inclusive, sensitive. There are several violations that can occur if the UCC is actually implemented.For instance, what about religious freedom and cultural diversity that is guaranteed by the Constitution? What about the burden of the practical challenges of the implementation of such a UCC?
Religious freedom that is guaranteed by Article 25 of the Constitution.Also shows that personal laws are integral to religious practice and that their modification or abolition would constitute an infringement on the fundamental right to freedom of religion.[17] Person laws are just not legal instruments. They are centuries. Decades.Of tradition and cultural identity that cannot just be easily imposed or removed by the implementation of uniform law. The status quo application of personal laws is the strength of Indian civilization as it shows the ability to accommodate multiple traditions and legal systems.[18] Practical implementation concerns focus on the enormous challenges involved in creating a truly uniform code that would be acceptable to all religious communities. The complexity of merging diverse legal traditions, each with its own theological foundations and interpretative methods, presents significant technical and political obstacles.[19] the UCC could disproportionately impact religious minorities, particularly Muslims,and used as a political tool to target specific communities rather than as a genuine effort to promote gender equality and legal uniformity.[20] The people of India are not ready for UCC, the resistance and thew mindset will not enable the easy implementation of such a code.
Constitutional concerns:
The potential conflict between Article 44 and Article 25 requires careful constitutional analysis. While Article 25 guarantees freedom of religion, it is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by the state for maintaining public order, morality, and health.[21] The Supreme Court has established that religious freedom includes the right to practice religion according to one’s beliefs, but this right is not absolute and must be balanced against other constitutional values including equality and social justice. The doctrine of essential religious practices, developed by the Supreme Court, provides a framework for determining which aspects of religious personal laws constitute protected religious practices. In Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments v. Lakshmindra Swami, the Court held that the Constitution protects religious practices that are integral to religion, but not those that are merely traditional or customary.[22]
Contemporary Challenges
The debate of UCC is always struck in political and religious and communal lines. This makes very calm and rational discussion about the UCC very difficult and challenging instead of replacing all the personal laws at once.There should be a better strategy involved.The final contention remains that there must be gradual changes within the personal law before AUCC is made and enforced and implemented without the consensus of the public. For the UCC to actually work, there has to be real dialogue with religious groups, civil society, and women’s organisations so that the law is fair, inclusive, and widely accepted.
Conclusion
The Uniform Civil Code I believe remains a dead letter as said in the Sarla Mugdal case.[23] It remains an empty promise, with impeding impracticalities, a proposal to alter the mindset of the communities. In a country that cannot even register every marriage that happens, the implementation of enforcement on a UCC is a far way ahead or perhaps an impossibility for the Indian polity. Even though Article 44 sanctions a UCC, its implementation requires careful consideration. The diverse concerns raised by different segments of society must be considered. The path forward requires moving beyond polarized positions to engage in constructive dialogue about how to achieve the constitutional goal of equality while respecting religious diversity. The UCC implementation is a far, strenuous, almost an impossibility, to achieve that nation’s aspirations and a significant change to the legal framework.
[1] INDIA CONST. art. 44.
[2] Werner Menski, The Uniform Civil Code Debate in Indian Law: New Developments and Changing Agenda, 9 German L.J. 231 (2008), https://doi.org/10.1017/S2071832200006416 (last visited June 25, 2025).
[3] Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, No. 25, Acts of Parliament, 1955 (India); Hindu Succession Act, 1956, No. 30, Acts of Parliament, 1956 (India).
[4] Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, No. 26, Acts of Parliament, 1937 (India).
[5] Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872, No. 15, Acts of Parliament, 1872 (India); Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936, No. 3, Acts of Parliament, 1936 (India).
[6] Derrett, J.D.M., “The History of the Juridical Framework of the Joint Family,” in RELIGION, LAW AND THE STATE IN INDIA 85-120 (1968).
[7] 7 CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY DEBATES 781 (1948).
[8] Shefali Jha, Secularism in the Constituent Assembly Debates, 1946-1950, 37 ECON. & POL. WEEKLY 3175 (2002).
[9] Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, (1985) 2 SCC 556.
[10] Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, No. 25, Acts of Parliament, 1986 (India).
[11] INDIA CONST. art. 14.
[12] LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA, REFORM OF FAMILY LAW, Report No. 279 (2018).
[13] Shabbeer Ahmed & Shabeer Ahmed, Uniform Civil Code (Article 44 of the Constitution) A Dead Letter, 67 Indian J. Pol. Sci. 545 (2006), https://www.jstor.org/stable/418562.
[14] Parashar, Archana, “Gender Inequality and Religious Personal Laws in India,” 14 BROWN J. WORLD AFF. 103, 108 (2007).
[15] Dhavan, Rajeev, “Religious Freedom in India,” 35 AM. J. COMP. L. 209, 215 (1987).
[16] Shabbeer Ahmed & Shabeer Ahmed, Uniform Civil Code (Article 44 of the Constitution) A Dead Letter, 67 Indian J. Pol. Sci. 545 (2006), https://www.jstor.org/stable/418562.
[17] INDIA CONST. art. 25.
[18] Menski, Werner, “Hindu Law as a ‘Religious’ System,” in RELIGION AND PERSONAL LAW IN SECULAR INDIA 108-135 (2001).
[19] Diwan, Paras, “Uniform Civil Code: Problems and Prospects,” 22 COCHIN U. L. REV. 85, 92 (1998).
[20] Engineer, Asghar Ali, “Problems of Muslim Women and Uniform Civil Code,” 29 ECON. & POL. WEEKLY 2147, 2149 (1994).
[21] INDIA CONST. art. 25.
[22] Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments v. Lakshmindra Swami, AIR 1954 SC 282.
[23] Sarla Mugdal case 1995 3 SCC 635.
Author: Suhani Skumar
Juris Centre 