Examine the tension between Directive Principles (Article 44) and Fundamental Rights (Article 25-26) in the context of a Uniform Civil Code.

Article 44 directs the State to "endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code," yet it sits in Part IV and is non-justiciable under Article 37, while Articles 25-26 are enforceable Fundamental Rights [1]. The UCC debate is therefore a contest between a State goal and a citizen's guaranteed liberty — a tension real in politics, but largely reconcilable in constitutional law.

Roots of the tension

• Hierarchy of enforceability: Article 44 cannot be judicially enforced; Article 25(1) can be, through Article 32 [1].
• Group autonomy: Article 26(b) lets denominations manage their own religious affairs, and personal laws on marriage, divorce and succession are claimed as part of that domain [1].
• Identity concerns: uniformity is read by minorities as majoritarian assimilation, weakening the pluralism the Constitution protects.

How the tension is playing out

• The 21st Law Commission's 2018 Consultation Paper on Reform of Family Law held a UCC "neither necessary nor desirable" at that stage, favouring codification of each personal law to remove discrimination [2].
• The 22nd Law Commission reopened public consultation on UCC in 2023 [3].
• Uttarakhand became the first State to enforce a UCC (in force 27 January 2025) on marriage, divorce and succession irrespective of religion, exempting Scheduled Tribes [4]; West Bengal has since referred a draft UCC Bill to a committee under Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai [5].

Constitutional reconciliation

• Article 25 is expressly subject to public order, morality, health and other Part III rights — so religious freedom yields to equality under Articles 14-15 [1].
• The Supreme Court's essential religious practices test excludes secular, State-regulated matters; instant triple talaq was struck down and legislated against in 2019 [6].

The tension is thus one of sequencing, not of irreconcilable conflict: Article 44 supplies the destination, Articles 25-26 the safeguards on the route. A phased path — codifying personal laws, ending demonstrably discriminatory practices, and building consensus through wide consultation — advances gender justice while keeping faith with India's pluralist constitutional vision.