Examine the case for and against a Uniform Civil Code in the specific context of marriageable age across religious communities in India.

Article 44 directs the State to secure a Uniform Civil Code (UCC), and marriageable age is where the gap between secular statute and personal law is sharpest — the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act (PCMA), 2006 fixes 18 (female) and 21 (male), while uncodified Muslim personal law treats puberty as marital competence.

The case for uniformity

• Equality before law: identical criminal liability for the same act cannot depend on faith; the Allahabad High Court (July 2026) held the child-marriage ban applies to all religions, overriding puberty-based marriage [3].
• Child protection over custom: PCMA read with POCSO, 2012 treats an under-18 bride as a child; the pending 2021 Amendment Bill expressly provides that it overrides any other law, custom, usage or practice [1].
• Ends judicial confusion: divergent High Court rulings leave police and Child Marriage Prohibition Officers without a settled rule, weakening enforcement [3].
• Gender justice: uniform age advances Article 15(3) and SDG 5.3 on eliminating child marriage.

The case against

• Religious freedom: Article 25 protects practice; the Shariat Application Act, 1937 recognises personal law, and coercive uniformity risks alienating minorities.
• Uniformity ≠ enforcement: the female minimum has been 18 since 1978, yet roughly 23% of women aged 20–24 were married before 18 — poverty, dowry and low schooling, not law, drive the practice [1].
• Autonomy concern: raising the female age to 21 while majority remains 18 restricts adult choice and may push marriages underground [1].
• Process: the Law Commission's continuing public consultation shows a UCC needs consensus-building, not imposition [2].

Uniform marriageable age is best achieved not by a sweeping code but by consistent enforcement of PCMA/POCSO, backed by an authoritative Supreme Court ruling settling statute–personal law primacy. Codifying child protection while preserving religious diversity elsewhere reconciles Article 25 with Articles 15(3) and 21 — the incremental route Article 44 realistically demands.