THE UNIFORM CIVIL CODE IN INDIA: BALANCING CONSTITUTIONAL IDEALS AND SOCIAL REALITIES

ABSTRACT:

The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is a much-talked-about concept in India to substitute various religious personal laws with a uniform code of marriage, divorce, inheritance, and adoption. This article discusses the constitutional justification for a UCC, recent legal developments, and seminal Supreme Court judgments. It also discusses the advantages and disadvantages of such a code. Also, it looks at the impact of a UCC on various communities in India, such as issues of religious minorities, possible positives for women’s rights, and threats to national cohesion. The article concludes by discussing how a just and inclusive UCC that is respectful of India’s diversity can be made.

INTRODUCTION:

Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is perhaps the most significant and controversial topic in India’s political and legal system. Article 44 of the Indian Constitution states that the State should attempt to enact a common code of civil law for everyone, irrespective of faith[1]. Such laws would address issues like marriage, divorce, inheritance, and adoption. But though the Constitution hints at it, governments have been quite reticent about enacting the UCC because India is a highly diverse nation, where communities adhere to their own religion-based personal laws.

In the recent past, the controversy surrounding the UCC has grown more intense. Political leaders and parties are demanding reforms in personal laws to promote equality and justice[2]. The proponents of the UCC contend that there will be gender equality, particularly for women, by having one law applicable to everyone, and it will further reinforce the concept of equality before law. It is expected to install a feeling of oneness and justice in society by eradicating discrimination due to various personal laws.

Conversely, the fear of critics is that having one uniform law could cut down on minority groups’ cultural and religious freedom. They hold that India’s vitality comes from pluralism and that personal laws are organically related to religious identity. The UCC could therefore be viewed by them as interference in matters of personal beliefs and practices.

The problem is thus not only legal but also profoundly social and emotional. Even as the UCC offers equality and national integration, it itself is challenged in terms of acceptance in a plural society. It is thus one of the most sensitive and complicated issues of contemporary India, where tradition, religion, and constitutional values have to be so delicately balanced.

CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK:

Historical Basis and Constitutional Directive –

The foundation of the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in India is firmly rooted in the Indian Constitution, particularly in the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs). Article 44 of the Constitution makes a clear reference to the idea of a common civil code, stating that the State shall strive to secure for its citizens[3] a uniform set of civil laws that apply equally to all individuals, regardless of their religion, caste, or community. The underlying principle is that personal matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, succession, and adoption should be governed by one standard law rather than fragmented religious codes.

However, the status of Article 44 is somewhat paradoxical[4]. The DPSPs, unlike Fundamental Rights, are non-justiciable, which means they cannot be legally enforced through courts[5]. They function as guiding principles or moral obligations for the State to work toward, but they do not confer a direct legal right upon citizens. This has placed the UCC in a zone of constitutional ambiguity it is recognized as an aspirational goal but not a mandatory directive.

The complexity becomes even sharper when Article 44 is considered alongside Articles 25 and 26, which guarantee citizens the freedom of religion and the right to manage religious affairs. Since many personal laws are closely intertwined with religious customs, the idea of imposing a uniform law often appears to conflict with these constitutional rights. For instance, marriage rituals in Hinduism, inheritance under Muslim law, or adoption practices in different communities all carry strong religious significance. Balancing the demand for equality under one law with the protection of religious diversity has therefore been one of the greatest constitutional challenges in advancing the UCC debate.

Thus, from the very outset, the UCC has existed as a constitutional aspiration rather than an enforceable mandate, creating both opportunities for reform and hurdles rooted in India’s multicultural and multi-religious society.

JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION AND LANDMARK JUDGMENTS:

The Indian judiciary has remained proactive in keeping the debate on the UCC going, even when the executive was reluctant to initiate concrete steps. Through various landmark judgments, courts have emphasized the significance of legal uniformity and gender justice in personal laws.

One of the earliest and most influential cases was the Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985). Here, a Muslim woman, Shah Bano, claimed maintenance against her divorced husband under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which gives maintenance rights regardless of religion. Her husband pleaded that Muslim personal law barred him from giving such support. The Supreme Court nevertheless gave the judgment in favour of Shah Bano, declaring that her claim under secular criminal law could not be refused on religious grounds. This ruling caused a furore, with most Muslim leaders seeing it as interference with their personal laws. However, the case brought to light how pluralistic personal laws were discriminatory against women, and brought the call for a uniform code once again to the foreground.

It was decades later when the Sharaya Bano v. Union of India (2017) case again brought the issue to the forefront. In this case, instant triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat) was contested. The Supreme Court held the practice to be unconstitutional, noting that it encroached upon the basic rights of Muslim women and was contrary to notions of justice and gender equality. The decision was celebrated as a landmark for Indian women’s rights and again illustrated how courts tended to spearhead reform of prejudicial practices where legislatures lagged behind.

Other judgments, for instance, Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India (1995), in which the Court condemned the abuse of personal law in conversion for the sake of polygamy, and John Vallamattom v. Union of India (2003), which overturned discriminatory laws in Christian personal law over property, are all evidence of the judiciary making a repeated plea for uniformity.

While successive governments have moved cautiously, taking into account the political and cultural sensitivities of the issue, the judiciary has pressed on towards the UCC. The latter’s pronouncements keep the debate open and remind the State of its constitutional obligation.

CURRENT LEGISLATIVE TRENDS:

Though India still has no national UCC, considerable experimentation has occurred at the state level.

The Goa Civil Code, with origins in Portuguese colonialism, remains operational as a uniform code applicable to all communities in Goa. It regulates issues such as marriage, divorce, and succession without distinguishing between religions. The Goa model is usually praised by legal experts for its capacity to reduce inter-religious tensions and provide equality, particularly to women. Though critics say that the small size of Goa, its distinct colonial past, and population render it an extraordinary case that cannot be easily replicated throughout India.

Uttarakhand more recently was the first independent Indian state to implement its own UCC in 2024. The Uttarakhand UCC makes an effort to equalize all residents in the state in marriage, divorce, maintenance, and inheritance. Though in most urban areas the law has been embraced, rural areas have resisted, pointing towards the persistence of religious and traditional norms.

Led by Uttarakhand’s initiative, other states like Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh have initiated committees to examine the viability of implementing state-specific UCCs. These reports point to a new legislative direction where states are experimenting with localized uniform codes, though the national government is still cautious.

This incremental, state-level process may end up clearing the ground for a national UCC by fostering acceptance gradually without making an attempt at a sweeping, all-India reform.

ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF THE UCC:

Encouraging Gender Justice and Equality

One of the most robust arguments in favour of the UCC is the potential to eliminate gender injustice rooted in personal laws. To illustrate, in certain interpretations of Muslim law, daughters inherit less than sons, whereas under traditional Hindu law (before legislative reforms), daughters had restricted inheritance rights vis-à-vis sons. A UCC would guarantee equal rights to women in inheritance, adoption, marriage, and divorce, thus empowering them economically and socially.

Strengthening Secularism and National Unity –

India is a secular state, with the government not being allowed to favor or discriminate against any religion. But having different personal laws does introduce religiously labeled legal categories, which goes against the equality before law. A single code would be egalitarian in its approach and would strengthen the notion of common citizenship and promote national integration.

Streamlining Legal Processes –

Currently, Indian courts are frequently confronted with conflicting claims since personal laws are different for religions and communities. This creates confusion, inconsistent judgments, and procedural delays. A UCC would make the legal framework simpler, allowing courts to provide quicker and clearer judgments.

Learning from Global Examples –

Many nations have been able to achieve uniform codes. France’s Napoleonic Code brought into being a secular legal code that terminated feudal and ecclesiastical laws. Likewise, Turkey’s 1920s reforms removed religious family codes in favour of a secular civil code, advancing women’s rights and modernizing society. These international precedents indicate that legal uniformity, if carefully introduced, can go hand in hand with cultural diversity and facilitate social advancement.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO THE UCC:

Maintaining Religious and Cultural Identity –

Opponents contend that personal laws run deep into religious and cultural traditions. For most minority groups, the laws are a part of their culture, and enforcing a single code would be perceived as interference in their religion. They emphasize that Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution promise freedom of religion, and a UCC could violate those rights.

Diversity of Traditions –

India’s diversity is not only religious but also social and cultural. For instance, the Khasi tribe in Meghalaya has a matrilineal system in which the inheritance is through women, in contrast to patriarchal traditions in the majority of communities. A single code of conduct may not be able to include such special traditions, which could undermine cultural pluralism.

Political Sensitivities –

The debate on UCC tends to be politicized as the minority communities apprehend that it could be used by the majority community as a means to subject them to their cultural values. Governments have become wary due to the fear of majoritarianism dominating them as aggressively pursuing the UCC can only exacerbate communal tensions.

IMPLEMENTATION CASE STUDIES:

Goa: A Working Example –

Goa’s civil code has been celebrated as an experiment in implementing uniform laws for all religions. It provides equal rights in marriage, divorce, and succession, thus minimizing gender inequalities. Critics have, however, argued that Goa’s small size and unique colonial background make it an exceptional and not a representative case for India.

Uttarakhand’s UCC (2024)

The implementation of the UCC in Uttarakhand is regarded as a milestone development in India’s legal history. Based partially on Goa’s model, the UCC was tailored to suit the state’s social realities. Although it has received support from urban groups, resistance in rural regions shows that there are obstacles in ending age-old customs. Bridging this gap, awareness campaigns clarifying the UCC’s merits have been initiated by the state.

International Lessons –

France’s Napoleonic Code and Turkey’s secular reforms demonstrate how civil law uniformity can modernize society and improve gender justice. Yet these examples also indicate the value of political will, gradualism, and respect for diversity in avoiding opposition and ensuring success.

PUBLIC OPINION AND SOCIETAL ATTITUDES:

Public opinion in India on the UCC is divided. Surveys indicate that urban populations, women, and the younger generation are generally supportive, viewing it as a means to achieve gender equality and simplify legal procedures. For example, an India Today survey in 2023 revealed that nearly 69% of respondents favoured the idea of a UCC.

In contrast, religious minorities are cautious, as they may lose their religious and cultural practices. They see the UCC not merely as a legal change but as a threat to their identity. This divide in opinion accounts for the fact that the matter is still politically charged and that governments walk with care.

SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS

If implemented, a national UCC would mark a transformative shift in Indian society. Women would gain equal rights in areas such as inheritance, marriage, and divorce, helping to dismantle patriarchal structures. The judicial system would benefit from simplified procedures, reducing case backlogs and ensuring quicker justice.

Yet, the UCC should be implemented sensitively towards India’s cultural heterogeneity. Abrupt, comprehensive reform would be alienating and galvanize resistance. Rather, incremental reforms like the elimination of triple talaq or the progressive amendment to Hindu law prove that incremental, consultative reform is more fruitful and enduring.

In the long run, the UCC has the potential to take India closer to the constitutional promise of equality and secularism, but it has to be pursued cautiously, keeping unity and diversity intact.

CONCLUSION:

The Uniform Civil Code in India is at the intersection of constitutional idealism and social reality. Lawfully, it guarantees uniformity, easy justice, and, most importantly, gender equality by obliterating discriminatory aspects buried in various personal laws. Socially, it presents problems inherent in India’s secular tradition and multicultural diversities. The Goa and Uttarakhand experience shows that uniformity is possible through a sensitive, context-based approach. The path ahead is one of inclusive conversation, broad public discussion, and incremental reform rather than sudden imposition. A successful UCC will be one that respects India’s pluralistic spirit while robustly maintaining its constitutional promise to justice and equality. It will take mutual respect, reflective legislation, and consensus-building for the dream of a uniform civil code to become a unifying, transformatory reality for India.

REFERENCES:

[1] Vaibhavi Pawar, Uniform Civil Code: A Battle with Religion, JURIS CENTRE (Aug. 10, 2023), https://juriscentre.com/2023/08/10/uniform-civil-code-a-battle-with-religion/ .

[2] Huzaifa Aslam, Constitutional Aspects Revolving Around Uniform Civil Code: A Critical Analysis, TSCLD (Nov. 13, 2023), https://www.tscld.com/uniform-civil-code-a-critical-analysis.

[3] Need for a Uniform Civil Code in a Secular India, BYJU’S Free IAS Prep (2023), https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/need-for-a-uniform-civil-code-in-a-secular-india/.

[4] Facebook, https://www.facebook.com/justicekatju/posts/the-issue-of-a-uniform-civil-code-has-recently-been-raised-i-am-fully-in-support/ 769962179710997 (last visited Aug. 20, 2025).

[5] Unlike Fundamental Rights, Which Are Justiciable and Can Be Enforced by the Courts, DPSPs Are Non-Justiciable, Meaning That Citizens Cannot Directly Approach the Courts to Enforce Them: Discuss, INSIGHTS IAS (Aug. 30, 2023), https://www.insightsonindia.com/2023/08/30/unlike-fundamental-rights-which-are-justiciable-and-can-be-enforced-by-the-courts-dpsps-are-non-justiciable-meaning-that-citizens-cannot-directly-approach-the-courts-to-enforce-them-discuss/.