State-level enactment of a Uniform Civil Code strengthens the DPSP but fragments its 'uniformity'. Critically examine with reference to recent State legislations.

Article 44 asks the State to "endeavour to secure" a uniform civil code "throughout the territory of India". Uttarakhand's UCC Act, 2024 [2] and Gujarat's UCC Bill, 2026, which received Presidential assent in September 2026 [1], turn this directive into enforceable law. However, codes made State by State raise a basic question: uniform for whom, and across what territory?

How State UCCs strengthen the DPSP

• Constitutional legitimacy: Marriage and succession fall in the Concurrent List (Entry 5). Under Article 254(2), President's assent lets a State law prevail over conflicting central personal laws, and Gujarat used this route [1].
• Gender justice: Gujarat prohibits bigamy and sets common rules for divorce and succession [1]. This responds to the concerns raised in Sarla Mudgal and Shayara Bano.
• Legal certainty: Uttarakhand runs compulsory registration of live-in relationships, with maintenance rights for deserted women and legitimacy for children [3].
• Laboratories of reform: State codes generate working models for a future national debate.

How they fragment 'uniformity'

• Internal exclusions: Gujarat exempts Scheduled Tribes (Article 342) and Part XXI customary-rights groups [1]. As a result, people in the same district can follow different family laws.
• Inter-State patchwork: Differing State codes mean a couple's rights can change when they cross a State border. This is the opposite of a code "throughout the territory of India".
• Extra-territorial reach: Gujarat's Act also binds residents living outside the State [1], which raises questions under Article 245(1).
• Uniform is not the same as equal: The 21st Law Commission (2018) favoured reforming each personal law instead, through community of marital property, the child's best interest in custody decisions, and a gender-just Muslim inheritance code [4].
• Privacy: Mandatory live-in registration [3] must pass the proportionality test laid down in Puttaswamy (2017).

Way forward

• Before notifying the Act, Gujarat should publish its draft rules for public comment [1].
• Live-in registration should work as a protection, not a punishment.
• The Union should build on the 22nd Law Commission's 2023 consultation [5] to offer States a common model code.

State UCCs advance Article 44 in principle, but they replace one kind of plurality (religious) with others (State-wise and tribal). A consultative national framework that respects Sixth Schedule and Part XXI protections would combine equality (Article 14) with diversity. That would meet the gender-justice aims of SDG 5 and the constitutional promise of a uniform civil code.