Skip to main content

Comrades Editorial · 01 Oct 2026 (PDF)

​
In this edition

  1. Towards a Uniform Civil Code Polity & Governance

​
Polity & Governance

​
Towards a Uniform Civil Code

Source This editorial is based on “Towards a gender just Uniform Civil Code” published in the Indian Express on 29/09/2026. The article highlights that implementing UCC must prioritize gender justice and equal rights over cultural uniformity. It advocates for an incremental legislative approach, protecting tribal autonomies, and addressing patriarchal biases in personal laws to build broader consensus. Union Home Minister’s announcement targeting the implementation of a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) across 21 states before the 2029 Lok Sabha elections reignites intense national debate. Enshrined in Article 44, the proposed framework seeks to replace religion-based personal laws with standardized secular rules for marriage, divorce, and inheritance, balancing goals of gender justice against complex minority and tribal rights concerns. What is the Uniform Civil Code (UCC)?
  • About:
    • The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) refers to a common, secular, and standardized body of civil laws governing personal matters for all citizens of India, regardless of their faith, caste, gender, or tribe.
    • Indian criminal, procedural, commercial, and evidence laws, such as the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Indian Contract Act, 1872, are already uniform across the national territory.
    • Matters related to family affairs are currently fragmented across faith-based statutes, including the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Shariat Application Act, 1937, Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872, and Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936.
  • Constitutional & Legislative Architecture:
    • Article 44 (Directive Principles):
      • Enshrined under Part IV of the Constitution, Article 44 mandates that “The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a Uniform Civil Code throughout the territory of India.”
      • Being a Directive Principle, Article 44 serves as a fundamental guideline for governance but is not directly enforceable by courts through writs.
    • Entry 5, Concurrent List (Seventh Schedule): Personal laws fall under Entry 5 of List III (Concurrent List)—covering “Marriage and divorce; infants and minors; adoption; wills, intestacy and succession”. This grants both the Union Parliament and State Legislative Assemblies constitutional jurisdiction to enact civil codes.
  • Historical Evolution & Codification Trajectory:
    • Colonial Non-Interference (Lex Loci Report, 1840): The British colonial administration uniformized substantive civil and criminal law but deliberately exempted personal laws of Hindus and Muslims to avoid native resistance.
    • B.N. Rau Committee (1941): Formed to codify Hindu personal laws, which eventually led to the draft Hindu Code Bill.
    • Constituent Assembly Debates (1948–1949):
      • Proponents (Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, K.M. Munshi): Argued that personal laws perpetuate gender discrimination and prevent national consolidation. Ambedkar explicitly argued that religious domain rights should not insulate personal laws from social reform.
      • Opponents (Naziruddin Ahmad, Mohd. Ismail): Feared majority imposition and violation of freedom of religion. The resulting political compromise was placing the UCC under Article 44 (DPSP) rather than Part III (Fundamental Rights).
    • Selective Reform (1955–1956): Parliament enacted the four Hindu Code Bills (Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act, 1956, and Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956), modernizing Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, and Sikh personal laws while leaving non-Hindu codes un-codified.
  • Current Status of Implementation of UCC:
    • As of September 2026, the implementation of UCC in India continues to follow a state-led, incremental model rather than a single, pan-India central enactment. Because personal law falls under the Concurrent List, individual state legislatures have taken the initiative to pass and implement state-specific UCC legislation.
    • Status at the National Level: The Union Government has supported state-level implementations as testing grounds (“pioneer models”) to observe legal, administrative, and constitutional outcomes before pushing for a uniform national bill in Parliament.
    • States with Fully Enacted/Implemented UCCs:
      • UCC progress is anchored by Goa’s historic 1867 Portuguese Civil Code, followed by Uttarakhand becoming the first post-independence state to enforce a UCC in January 2025.
      • Momentum accelerated in 2026 as Gujarat passed its UCC Act in March 2026, Assam enacted its law in May 2026, and Madhya Pradesh adopted its legislation in July 2026.
What are the Arguments in Favour of Implementation of UCC in India?
  • Substantive Gender Justice and International Human Rights Compliance:
    • Personal laws across religions have historically reflected patriarchal structures, causing dual marginalisation based on gender and religious identity.
    • For instance, under the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, a female heir generally receives half the share of a male heir of the same degree. A UCC can uphold women’s Article 14 right to equality irrespective of religious identity.
    • India ratified Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) in 1993 but retained reservations regarding non-interference in community personal laws. A UCC can bridge this gap by aligning domestic laws with Article 2 of CEDAW, which calls for eliminating discriminatory customs and practices.
    • A UCC shifts marriage and family law from theological grounds to a secular, Rights-Based Approach, ensuring issues like Community of Property, marital property division and post-divorce maintenance are determined by economic capacity and duration of marriage rather than religious affiliation.
  • Fulfilment of Constitutional Direction (Article 44):
    • As debated in the Constituent Assembly by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and K.M. Munshi, the state possesses an affirmative obligation to intervene in personal laws for social reform.
    • Article 44 (Directive Principles of State Policy) was designed to be a tool for modernization, treating uniformity not as cultural homogenization, but as a prerequisite for equal citizenship.
    • A UCC would operationalise this constitutional vision by harmonising civil rights with Fundamental Rights, ensuring that personal laws evolve in accordance with principles of equality, dignity and non-discrimination.
  • Economic Efficiency, Tax Harmonisation, and Wealth Distribution:
    • The current legal fragmentation creates unequal economic privileges. Under the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) is recognised as a separate tax entity with benefits available to Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs. A UCC can promote tax harmonisation by removing religion-based differences in wealth management.
    • Around 60% of pending civil cases involve property and land disputes, often prolonged due to complex succession laws. A uniform inheritance framework can simplify asset transfer, reduce litigation costs and release locked capital into the formal economy.
    • Standardising property ownership rights and testamentary succession rules can eliminate unequal inheritance practices and strengthen women’s Financial Autonomy, improving their participation in employment, entrepreneurship and asset creation.
  • Jurisprudential Symmetry and Mitigation of Judicial Overreach:
    • Absence of a UCC creates constitutional tension between Article 25 (Freedom of Religion) and Articles 14 and 15 (Equality and Non-Discrimination). A UCC can resolve this by treating marriage, divorce and inheritance as secular civil contracts governed by the Right to Equality rather than theological mandates.
    • Without a codified uniform law, courts often rely on the Essential Religious Practices (ERP) Test to interpret civil rights, creating inconsistent jurisprudence. A UCC establishes a predictable Lex Loci (law of the land) for family law and reduces judicial dependence on theological interpretation.
  • Child Rights and the “Best Interests” Paradigm:
    • Existing personal laws contain gender-based guardianship hierarchies.
    • For instance, the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 designates the father as the “first natural guardian,” while Islamic concepts of Hizanat (custody) and Wilayat (guardianship) often prioritize male relatives. A UCC can establish a gender-neutral framework based on the Best Interests of the Child principle.
    • Communities outside the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (HAMA), 1956 traditionally relied on the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, providing limited guardianship rather than full parenthood. A UCC can codify equal adoption rights for all citizens, including single parents and marginalised groups, without religious limitations.
  • De-communalisation of Civil Rights and National Cohesion:
    • Separate personal laws create siloed identity politics, where civil rights may become linked with communal identities. A UCC can decouple personal rights from religion, promoting pluralistic integration by ensuring citizens are governed by common constitutional principles.
    • India already follows uniform legal frameworks in areas such as crime (BNS), evidence (Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) and contracts (Indian Contract Act, 1872).
    • These examples show that legal uniformity can coexist with cultural diversity while providing a baseline of standardised justice.
What are the Constraints in the Implementation of UCC in India?
  • Constitutional Protections for Tribal and Indigenous Communities:
    • The Constitution protects tribal customary laws, religious practices and social administration in the Northeast through special provisions like Article 371A (Nagaland) and Article 371G (Mizoram), creating challenges for a blanket uniform code.
    • Regions under the Sixth Schedule (Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram) have Autonomous District Councils with legislative authority over marriage, inheritance and social customs, raising concerns about central interference with constitutional autonomy.
    • Centralised legal structures have faced resistance from indigenous groups such as the Arunachal Indigenous Tribes Forum (AITF), which view UCC as a potential threat to historical autonomy and customary justice systems.
  • Apprehensions of Cultural Assimilation Among Religious Minorities:
    • Minority communities often perceive absolute legal uniformity as majoritarian assimilation, fearing that UCC may impose dominant cultural norms while undermining their religious identity, personal laws and historical heritage.
    • The constitutional tension between Article 44 (Directive for UCC) and Article 25 (Freedom of Religion), along with protections under Article 29 (Cultural Rights of Minorities), creates concerns that replacing Islamic, Christian or Parsi personal laws may affect distinct cultural and institutional identities.
  • Complexities in Harmonizing Pluralistic Hindu Customary Laws:
    • The Hindu community itself is not monolithic; for instance, the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 prohibits close blood marriages but allows customary exceptions, including cross-cousin and uncle-niece marriages followed by some South Indian communities.
    • A nationwide UCC must address such intra-community pluralism, where practices differ across regions, as seen in contrasting traditions like the Dayabhaga school (eastern India, including Bengal and Assam) and Mitakshara school (the rest of India), making complete uniformity legally and socially complex.
  • Federalism and Legislative Jurisdictional Conflicts:
    • Personal matters like marriage, divorce and inheritance fall under Entry 5 of the Concurrent List (Seventh Schedule), giving both Parliament and State Legislatures the power to legislate. A central UCC may raise concerns regarding cooperative federalism and state legislative flexibility.
    • Regional variations, including the Goa Civil Code with its localised provisions such as distinct property rules for certain communities, highlight the difficulty of scaling state-specific models into a national framework without affecting regional autonomy.
  • Paradox of Matrilineal Societies and Gender Disempowerment:
    • Implementing uniformity may inadvertently affect progressive matrilineal systems followed by the Khasi, Jaintia and Garo tribes of Meghalaya, where ancestral property passes through the youngest daughter (Khadduh).
    • A standardised inheritance framework could disrupt these women-centric economic structures, creating a paradox where a UCC intended for gender justice may result in cultural erasure and economic disenfranchisement of women benefiting from customary rights.
  • Logistical and Drafting Difficulty of Codifying Diverse Customs:
    • India has over 700 Scheduled Tribes and thousands of communities governed by diverse micro-level customary laws regulating marriage, inheritance and social practices. Documenting and integrating these traditions into a single code poses a major administrative and legal challenge.
    • Inadequate recognition of local customs in a UCC may lead to misrepresentation of traditions, civil litigation and disruption of community-based dispute resolution mechanisms built over generations.
  • Lack of Empirical Consensus and Law Commission Reservations:
    • The 21st Law Commission of India (2018), under Justice B.S. Chauhan, concluded that a UCC was “neither necessary nor desirable at this stage”, recommending reforms within existing personal laws.
    • The Commission advocated piecemeal reform to remove discriminatory provisions gradually, warning that an abrupt UCC without juridical backing and scholarly consensus may weaken its legitimacy.
Landmark Supreme Court Judgments on UCC
  • Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985): Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud observed that Article 44 had remained a “dead letter” and stated that a common civil code would strengthen national integration by removing conflicting loyalties based on ideological personal laws.
  • Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India (1995): The Supreme Court requested the Government of India to retrieve Article 44 from cold storage, noting that individual personal laws create legal loopholes exploited by individuals to evade existing statutory obligations.
  • Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017): While the majority opinion focused on fundamental rights violations rather than enforcing a UCC directly, the ruling reinforced the principle that personal law practices must conform to constitutional morality.
  • Jose Paulo Coutinho v. Maria Luiza Valentina Pereira (2019): Justice Deepak Gupta praised Goa as a “shining example” of a functioning UCC, noting that it protects joint property ownership between spouses and guarantees equal inheritance to all children regardless of gender or religion.
Law Commission Recommendations
  • 21st Law Commission (2018):
    • Led by former Supreme Court Justice B.S. Chauhan, the 21st Law Commission released a detailed Consultation Paper on “Reforms of Family Law” in August 2018.
    • The Commission explicitly concluded that a Uniform Civil Code was “neither necessary nor desirable at this stage”. It asserted that “it is discrimination, not difference, that lies at the root of inequality” and advocated for reforming discriminatory practices within personal laws rather than imposing absolute legal uniformity.
  • 22nd Law Commission (2023):
    • In June 2023, the 22nd Law Commission, chaired by Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, issued a public notice to re-examine the UCC.
    • The Commission noted that over five years had passed since the 21st Commission’s paper. Given judicial developments, fresh public representations,, a fresh evaluation of public and institutional sentiment was required.
What Measures Should India Adopt to Ensure the Effective and Inclusive Implementation of the Uniform Civil Code?
  • Prioritizing “Uniformity of Rights” over “Uniformity of Rituals”:
    • The code must explicitly state that it does not mandate uniform cultural rituals (e.g., the way a marriage is solemnized). Instead, it strictly enforces Uniformity of Rights.
    • The legislation should solely focus on equalizing civic outcomes—ensuring equal inheritance rights for daughters, uniform grounds for divorce, standard alimony rules, and equal adoption rights across all communities.
    • By framing the UCC strictly as a Gender Justice intervention rather than a religious one, the state can disarm communal anxieties.
  • Piecemeal Codification and Internal Reforms:
    • Instead of a monolithic “omnibus bill,” India should adopt a Piecemeal Legislative Strategy. Parliament can pass specific uniform laws incrementally.
    • For instance, establishing a uniform age of marriage across all religions, followed by a uniform law for guardianship, and later, inheritance.
    • Before forcing a UCC, the government should encourage the codification of uncodified personal laws. As noted by legal experts, true reform often begins by weeding out discriminatory practices within the confines of existing personal laws first, making the eventual bridge to a UCC much shorter.
  • Constitutional & Federal Strategy for Asymmetric Protections:
    • Explicitly carve out procedural protections for Scheduled Tribes in Northeastern States and autonomous tribal councils. Standardize civil rights only where tribal customary institutions explicitly request alignment or where core human rights violations occur.
    • Use the Inter-State Council (Article 263) to establish a permanent Working Committee of State Law Ministers. This prevents conflicting state-level UCC enactments (such as isolated state codes) from causing jurisdiction-shopping across state borders.
  • Institutional Capacity & Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR):
    • Integrate Gram Nyayalayas and localized ADR centers with trained legal aid counsel (NALSA) to handle pre-litigation mediation. This prevents civil courts from being overwhelmed by minor succession or maintenance disputes.
    • Establish a specialized administrative body at the district level to oversee compliance, address complaints regarding non-registration of civil status, and protect vulnerable individuals from informal extra-judicial coercion.
  • Public Engagement & Socio-Cultural Policy:
    • Engage progressive scholars, women’s rights groups, and legal experts from within religious minorities to draft and advocate for reforms, framing UCC as gender justice rather than a political mandate.
    • Publish the Law Commission’s draft provisions as structured Public Policy White Papers translated into all 22 Scheduled Languages, accompanied by an open feedback loop to counter misinformation.
    • Integrate basic family law, property rights, and gender equality modules into senior secondary school curricula and legal literacy programs operated by SLSAs (State Legal Services Authorities).
Conclusion
  • The implementation of a nationwide Uniform Civil Code requires a delicate balancing act between achieving gender parity and respecting India’s socio-cultural pluralism. Rather than a top-down, monolithic imposition, a piecemeal strategy focusing on uniformity of rights over cultural rituals is essential. By codifying progressive reforms within existing personal laws and strictly protecting constitutional tribal exemptions, India can fulfill the vision of Article 44. Ultimately, a carefully drafted UCC must serve as a secular instrument for equality, justice, and national integration.