Uniform civil code

Also called: UCC, Article 44 · Topic: Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties · NCERT: Class 7, Ch 10 "The Constitution of India: An Introduction"; Class 10, Ch 4 "Political Parties"; Class 11, Ch 2 "Rights in the Indian Constitution"

Meaning

A uniform civil code (UCC) is one common set of laws for all citizens on marriage, divorce, inheritance and adoption, whatever their religion. Article 44 asks the State to try to secure it "throughout the territory of India". The idea matters because it sets two values against each other. One is equality and gender justice. The other is freedom of religion and the identity of minority communities. It is also often in the news because of court judgments, Law Commission reports and state laws like Uttarakhand's.

Explanation

What Article 44 asks for

• Text: "The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India."
• What it would replace: today each religious community follows its own personal law (its own family rules). Examples are Hindu law, Muslim personal law (Shariat), Christian law and Parsi law.
• Soft wording: "shall endeavour" means "shall try". The Constitution sets no deadline.
• Origin: Article 44 was Draft Article 35 of the Draft Constitution of 1948 [5].

Why no court can enforce it

• It sits in Part IV. It is a Directive Principle of State Policy (DPSP). A DPSP is a goal the government should work towards.
• It is non-justiciable (no court can enforce it), under Article 37.
• No mandamus: in Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2000) the Supreme Court said it cannot issue a writ of mandamus (a court order directing a public authority to do its duty) to make Parliament enact a UCC.
• Personal laws were kept out of court review:
• Article 13 strikes down any "law in force" that breaks a Fundamental Right.
• In Narasu Appa Mali (Bombay HC, 1952), the Court held that uncodified personal laws are not "law in force".
• So for decades these personal laws could not be tested against the Fundamental Rights.

How the Constituent Assembly decided

• In the Fundamental Rights sub-committee: Minoo Masani, Hansa Mehta and Rajkumari Amrit Kaur wanted the UCC to be a justiciable right (one courts can enforce). They lost, so the UCC went into the DPSPs.
• Debate on the floor, 23 November 1948:
• Opposed: Mohammad Ismail, Naziruddin Ahmad and B. Pocker Sahib. They said a UCC would violate freedom of religion and cause unrest in the Muslim community, and that personal law should not change without the community's consent [5].
• Defended: K.M. Munshi, Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar and B.R. Ambedkar. They said a UCC would support national unity and secularism, and that women's rights could not be secured without it [5].

• Ambedkar's middle path: the State need not act at once. A future code could first apply only to those who choose it (a voluntary code).

• Result: the Assembly adopted Draft Article 35 the same day, with no amendment [5].

Who can make the law, and its limits

• Concurrent List: family law is in List III, entry 5. So both Parliament and the states can make laws on it.
• Article 254(2): if a state law on a Concurrent subject conflicts with a central law, the state law prevails in that state only if the President assents.
• Limits on "uniform": tribal customary law is protected by Article 371A (Nagaland), Article 371G (Mizoram) and the Sixth Schedule (tribal areas of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram).
• The risk of state-wise codes: each state can pass its own code. India could then end up with many different "uniform" codes.

In the Constitution and practice

Partial steps towards a common law

• Hindu Code Bill: a plan to codify and reform Hindu personal law. It also covered Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs. It stalled in Parliament, and Ambedkar resigned as Law Minister in 1951. Parliament later passed it in four parts:
• Hindu Marriage Act 1955: monogamy (one spouse at a time), and divorce allowed;
• Hindu Succession Act 1956: inheritance rights for women;
• Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956;

• Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956.

• Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005: daughters became coparceners (equal joint heirs to ancestral property by birth, like sons). Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020): this right holds even if the father died before 2005.

• Special Marriage Act 1954:
• It allows a civil marriage (a marriage under state law, not religious rites) between people of any religion, with no need to convert.
• Its 30-day public notice is criticised on privacy grounds, because it exposes inter-faith couples to family pressure.

• In Supriyo v. Union of India (2023), the Court refused to read the Act as covering same-sex couples and left the matter to Parliament.

• Goa Civil Code:

• It is the Portuguese Civil Code of 1867, kept in force after Goa's liberation in 1961.
• It has compulsory registration of marriages, community of property (husband and wife jointly own the assets they hold during the marriage) and common succession rules.
• It has some exceptions, so it is not perfectly uniform.
• In Jose Paulo Coutinho v. Maria Luiza Valentina Pereira (2019), the Supreme Court called it a "shining example".

Court judgments and Parliament's replies

• Shah Bano (Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, 1985):
• A divorced Muslim woman could claim maintenance under s.125 CrPC. This is a secular rule that applies to everyone. It is now s.144 BNSS.
• The Court regretted that Article 44 had remained a "dead letter".
• Parliament's reply: the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986 limited the ex-husband's duty to pay maintenance to the iddat period (about three months after divorce).
• Danial Latifi (2001): upheld the 1986 Act, but read it to require a "reasonable and fair provision" for the woman's whole life, made within the iddat period.

• Mohd Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana (July 2024): a divorced Muslim woman can still use s.125 CrPC.

• Sarla Mudgal (1995):

• Hindu husbands converted to Islam to marry again without divorcing their first wives.
• The Court held that the first marriage stays valid, so the second marriage is void. The husband can be prosecuted for bigamy (having two spouses at once).

• The Court urged the government to frame a UCC.

• John Vallamattom (2003): the Court struck down s.118 of the Indian Succession Act 1925, which limited Christians' gifts to charity in their wills. It repeated its call for a UCC.

• Shayara Bano (22 August 2017, 3:2):
• The Court struck down instant triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat), where a husband ends a marriage at once by saying "talaq" three times in one sitting.
• Parliament's reply: the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act 2019 makes instant triple talaq void.
• It is a cognisable offence (the police can arrest without a warrant), punishable with up to 3 years in jail and a fine.
• The wife is entitled to a subsistence allowance (money for daily needs) and custody of minor children.

The Law Commission

• 21st Law Commission: issued the consultation paper "Reform of Family Law" on 31 August 2018. It found a UCC "neither necessary nor desirable at this stage" and preferred to reform each personal law instead [4].

• Its suggestions included no-fault divorce, compulsory registration of marriage, removing the unequal age of consent for marriage, a review of the Special Marriage Act's 30-day notice, stopping bigamy through conversion, and putting the "best interest of the child" first in custody cases [4].

• 22nd Law Commission: more than three years had passed since 2018, so it decided to study the subject afresh. It asked the public and recognised religious organisations for their views [3]. Views were taken from 14 June to 28 July 2023, including an extension [2].

Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code Act 2024

• It is Act No. 3 of 2024 and received the President's assent on 11 March 2024 [6].
• It was drafted by a committee headed by Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai. It came into force on 27 January 2025.
• It is the first state UCC after independence. Goa's code is older, but Goa inherited it from Portuguese rule.
• It covers marriage, divorce and succession. It makes registration compulsory for marriages contracted after the Code began [6] and for live-in relationships.
• It bans polygamy (more than one spouse) and practices such as halala.
• Scheduled Tribes are exempt. The Act has a separate provision on how it applies to them [6].

Don't confuse with

• Personal law: the family rules of each religious community, such as Hindu law or Shariat. The UCC is the proposal to replace these different laws with one common law.
• Special Marriage Act 1954: an optional civil marriage law that people of any religion can choose. A UCC would apply to everyone and would cover more than marriage.
• Fundamental Right: courts can enforce a Fundamental Right. Article 44 is a DPSP in Part IV, so courts cannot enforce it (Article 37), and Lily Thomas (2000) ruled out mandamus.
• Uniform criminal law: criminal law, such as s.125 CrPC (now s.144 BNSS), already applies to everyone. That is why Shah Bano could claim maintenance under it. The UCC is only about civil (family) matters.

Prelims Hooks

• Article 44 is a DPSP in Part IV, not a Fundamental Right. It was Draft Article 35, adopted on 23 November 1948 with no amendment [5].
• Masani, Hansa Mehta and Amrit Kaur wanted the UCC to be justiciable. Ismail, Naziruddin Ahmad and Pocker Sahib opposed it.
• Case chain: Shah Bano (1985) → 1986 Act (maintenance only for iddat) → Danial Latifi (2001, fair provision for life) → Abdul Samad (2024, s.125 CrPC still available).
• Sarla Mudgal (1995): converting to Islam does not allow a second marriage. Lily Thomas (2000): no mandamus to make a UCC.
• Goa: Portuguese code of 1867, a "shining example" (Jose Paulo Coutinho, 2019). Uttarakhand: President's assent on 11 March 2024, in force from 27 January 2025, Scheduled Tribes exempt.
• Trap: the 21st Law Commission (2018) said a UCC is "neither necessary nor desirable at this stage" [4]. The 22nd (June 2023) asked for public views afresh [3].

Mains Points

• Gender justice vs. freedom of religion:
• The courts have closed the worst gaps one case at a time: Shah Bano, Danial Latifi, Shayara Bano and Abdul Samad.
• Freedom of religion under Article 25 is "subject to" public order, morality, health and the other Fundamental Rights. So reform can come through Articles 14 and 15 even without a single code.

• The 21st Law Commission preferred removing discrimination within each personal law, for example through no-fault divorce, compulsory registration and fair inheritance rules [4]. A one-shot code risks being seen as imposed by the majority.

• Federalism and uniformity:

• Family law is in List III, entry 5. So a state like Uttarakhand can pass its own code with the President's assent (Article 254(2)).
• But different codes in different states would divide the law further. That goes against Article 44's goal of one code "throughout the territory of India".

• Tribal protections (Articles 371A and 371G, and the Sixth Schedule) and the Scheduled Tribe exemption in Uttarakhand show that "uniform" is never absolute.

• Ambedkar's optional route:

• A common, optional civil code could be built out from the Special Marriage Act. Over time, it could win the consent of communities.
• It would need privacy-friendly procedures, such as removing the 30-day public notice.
• This answers both the goal of national unity and the fears of minorities.

Related concepts

• Hindu Code Bill
• Special Marriage Act 1954
• Goa Civil Code
• Shah Bano case
• Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986
• Sarla Mudgal case
• Shayara Bano case
• Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act 2019
• Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code Act 2024

Read more

• The uniform civil code